HOW    TO    DEBATE 


BY 

EDWIN  DuBOIS  SHURTER 

PROFESSOR    OF    PUBLIC    SPEAKING    IN    THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  TEXAS 


HARPER  fcf  BROTHERS  PUBLISHERS 

NEW    YORK    AND     LONDON 


How  TO  DEBATE 


Copyright,  1917,  by  Harper  &  Brothers 

Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 

Published    May,  191? 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION i 

The  Advantages  of  Debate — The  Elements  of 
Debate. 

CHAP. 

I.  THE  PROPOSITION— MATTER  AND  FORM    .       10 

A  Proposition  Necessary  in  Debate — Selecting  the 
Proposition — Stating  the  Proposition — Exercises. 

II.  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  QUESTION 22 

Steps  in  Analysis:  Origin  and  History  of  the  Ques- 
tion, Definition,  Exclusion  of  Irrelevant  Matter,  State- 
ment of  Admitted  Matter,  Contentions  of  Both  Sides, 
The  Main  Issues — Exercises. 

III.  PROOF 46 

What  is  Proof? — Proof  vs.  Assertion — Varying  De- 
grees of  Possible  Proof — Burden  of  Proof — Exercises. 

IV.  EVIDENCE 61 

Tests  as  to  the  Nature  and  Sources  of  Evidence — 
Testimony  Especially  Valuable — Collecting  Evidence — 
Classification  of  Material — Exercises. 

V.  ARGUMENTS— CONSTRUCTIVE 99 

Direct  Argument:  From  Authority — Indirect  Argu- 
ment: Induction — Causal  Relationship — Example 
and  Analogy — Generalization — Deduction — the  Syl- 
logism— the  Dilemma — Method  of  Residues — Ex- 
ercises. 


372340 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

VI.  ARGUMENT— REFUTATION 151 

Direct  and  Indirect  Refutation — Fallacies — Special 
Forms  of  Fallacies — Special  Methods  of  Refutation — 
Exercises. 

VII.  THE  BRIEF 178 

Purpose  of  a  Brief — Different  Kinds  of  Outlines — 
Characteristics  of  a  Good  Brief — The  Main  Divisions 
of  a  Brief — Rules  for  Brief-writing — Specimen  Brief — 
Exercises. 

VIII.  PERSUASION     .    .    . 207 

Appeal  to  the  Emotions — Rhetorical  Qualities — 
Manner  of  Delivery — Exercises. 

IX.  METHODS   IN   SCHOOL  AND   COLLEGE  DE- 

BATING       249 

General  Organization  and  Conduct  of  a  Debate — 
The  Work  for  Each  Speaker— Exercises. 


APPENDICES 

I.  QUESTIONS  FOR  DEBATE 259 

II.  SPECIMEN     DEBATE     ON     PREPAREDNESS  .  270 

III.  RULES  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  PROCEDURE  .    .  301 

IV.  BIBLIOGRAPHIES,  REFERENCES,  AND  HELPS 

FOR  DEBATERS 312 


PREFACE 

'T'HIS  book  treats  of  the  various  ways  of  con- 
1  vincing  and  persuading  men.  While  intended 
as  a  text-book  for  high  schools  and  colleges,  it  is 
also  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  lawyer,  the  preach- 
er, the  teacher,  the  citizen;  in  short,  to  any  one 
who  is  called  upon — and  who  is  not? — to  urge  the 
acceptance  of  his  ideas  upon  a  hearer,  or  to  refute 
ideas  offered  in  opposition  thereto. 

In  our  schools  and  colleges  the  value  of  argu- 
mentation as  an  independent  branch  of  study  is 
now  generally  recognized.  But  numerous  as  are 
the  treatises  on  argumentation,  the  subject  of  de- 
bating is  usually  treated  in  a  single  chapter,  or 
not  at  all.  This  book  aims  to  meet  the  needs  not 
only  of  the  expert  in  argumentation,  but  also  of 
the  practical  debater.  The  average  citizen  is 
called  upon  to  argue  orally  far  oftener  than  he  is 
required  to  present  a  written  argument;  and  of 
what  avail  is  his  knowledge  and  logic  if  they  can- 
not be  utilized  in  the  discussions  of  every-day  life? 
However,  any  attempt  to  teach  debate  in  a  thor- 
ough and  systematic  manner  must  involve  the 
study  of  argumentation  generally,  and  this,  in 
turn,  involves  practice  in  brief-writing  and  argu- 


PREFACE 

mentative  composition.  A  treatise  on  debate, 
therefore,  must  include  the  subject  of  argumenta- 
tion in  all  its  phases — analysis,  evidence,  proof, 
the  different  kinds  of  arguments  and  how  to  meet 
them.  But  the  present  volume  goes  farther  than 
this,  and  aims  to  show  the  student  how  he  may 
utilize  his  training  in  writing  when  he  is  called 
upon  to  present  his  arguments  orally  before  an 
actual  audience  and  in  the  presence  of  an  opponent 
who  is  waiting  to  reply. 

Debate  being  primarily  a  disciplinary  study,  not 
an  informing  one,  the  ultimate  purpose  of  instruc- 
tion in  this  line  must  be  to  lead  one  to  think  for 
himself,  and  to  think  straight.  It  is  therefore  a 
difficult  subject  to  treat  in  a  formal  manner.  The 
endeavor  has  been,  however,  to  develop  the  treat- 
ment in  a  systematic  way,  making  all  suggestions 
as  specific  as  possible,  giving  attention  to  one  thing 
at  a  time,  and  supplementing  principles  and  the- 
ories with  illustrative  matter  and  with  exercises 
for  practice.  The  Appendices  contain  further  illus- 
trative and  reference  material  for  general  use; 
the  questions  for  debate,  references,  rules  of  par- 
liamentary procedure,  specimen  debates,  etc.,  will 
be  helpful  not  only  to  the  teacher  in  class  work, 
but  also  to  members  of  literary  and  debating 
societies. 

This  book  is  an  outgrowth  of  the  author's  former 
treatise,  Science  and  Art  of  Debate  (1908).  Certain 
parts  of  that  book,  more  or  less  revised,  are  incor- 
porated in  the  present  treatise,  wrnle  other  parts 
have  been  wholly  rewritten  with  a  view  of  adapt- 


PREFACE 

ing  the  treatment  to  the  needs  of  high-school 
students.  In  the  work  of  revision  the  author  de- 
sires to  make  special  acknowledgment  of  the  as- 
sistance rendered  by  John  R.  Pelsma,  Professor 
of  Public  Speaking  in  the  Oklahoma  Agricultural 
and  Mechanical  College. 

E.  D.  S. 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OP  TEXAS, 
January,  1917. 


HOW   TO    DEBATE 


HOW    TO    DEBATE 


INTRODUCTION 

I.    THE   ADVANTAGES   OF   DEBATE 

OIGNIFICANT  among  tendencies  in  modern 
<-5  American  education  is  the  revival  and  spread 
of  the  practice  of  debate  in  our  schools  and  colleges. 
The  debt  of  England  to  the  numerous  debating 
societies  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge  has  long  been 
recognized,  most  of  that  country's  distinguished 
orators  and  statesmen  having  received  their  first 
training  in  these  societies.  In  America,  within  the 
past  ten  or  fifteen  years,  there  has  come,  in  and 
out  of  the  schools  and  colleges,  a  noteworthy  re- 
vival of  the  old-time  debating  lyceum.  Inter- 
scholastic  athletics  have  been  paralleled  by  intel- 
lectual athletics  in  the  form  of  interscholastic 
debates. 

The  cause  of  this  marked  interest  in  debating 
among  students  is  not  far  to  seek.  In  the  first 
place,  it  represents  not  so  much  a  reaction  against 
athletics — which  is  sometimes  claimed — as  activity 
along  similar  lines  and  through  similar  causes.  As 


2  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

the  typical  Amen  can  student  of  to-day  is  no  longer 
the  " pale"  student,  too  ethereal  for  a  vigorous 
physical  life,  so,  on  the  mental  side,  he  is  no  longer 
the  simple  "book- worm"  wholly  removed  from  the 
currents  of  thought  and  action  in  the  great  world- 
life  for  which  he  is  supposedly  making  preparation. 
He  is  now  preparing  to  meet  the  demands  of  Ameri- 
can citizenship,  and  by  studying  and  discussing  the 
economic,  social,  and  political  questions  which  are 
pressing  constantly  for  solution  is  fitting  himself 
for  future  leadership. 

Practice  in  oral  argumentation  has  many  special 
advantages,  among  which  may  be  mentioned: 

i.  Debating  teaches  one  to  think  for  himself. — It 
conduces  to  logical,  clear,  and  independent  think- 
ing. And  this  is  a  rare  accomplishment,  for  few 
people  really  think  for  themselves.  How  many  of 
our  opinions  and  so-called  "convictions,"  opinions 
which  we  hold  as  axiomatic,  are  borrowed  from 
those  with  whom  we  have  been  associated.  The 
process  of  debating  is  the  crucial  test  as  to  the 
value  of  such  opinions.  Mere  assertion  or  citing 
the  opinion  of  another  will  not  avail  in  debate,  as 
one  must  state  reasons  for  the  faith  that  is  in  him. 
All  propositions,  opinions,  and  assertions  come  to 
the  mind  of  the  educated  man  punctuated  with 
interrogation  points.  "Beware,"  says  Emerson, 
"when  the  great  God  lets  loose  a  thinker  on  this 
planet."  Many  branches  of  study  must  be  taken 
largely  on  the  authority  of  specialists,  but  the  dis- 
cussion of  debatable  questions  of  the  day  opens 
up  a  field  of  subjects  upon  which  authorities  differ 


INTRODUCTION  3 

so  widely  that  no  opinion  is  orthodox.  This  the 
novice  in  debate  soon  discovers.  He  rises,  and 
with  great  satisfaction  proceeds  to  enlighten  his 
hearers  upon  the  subject  under  discussion,  employ- 
ing "strong  assertion  without  proof,  declamation 
without  argument,  and  violent  censure  without  dig- 
nity or  moderation."  But  presently,  as  he  sees 
the  bottom  knocked  out  of  his  arguments,  he  be- 
comes disgusted  with  his  second-hand  opinions  and 
begins  to  think  for  himself.  Nothing  is  so  con- 
ducive to  thought  as  the  direct  contact  of  mind 
with  mind.  Nothing  so  widens-  one's  mental  vision 
as  an  effort  to  define  one's  position  upon  a  given 
subject.  Nothing  so  clearly  and  forcibly  shows  a 
man  the  unstable  foundations  of  his  opinions  as  an 
attempt  to  support  these  opinions  in  the  face  of 
unsparing  criticism. 

2.  It  stimulates  logical  thinking  and  accurate 
expression. — Perhaps  no  study  equals  debate  in 
the  acquirement  of  the  power  of  logical  thinking 
combined  with  clear  expression.  The  real  debater 
cannot  indulge  in  "glittering  generalities,"  but  has 
a  definite  issue  on  which  to  speak.  The  faults  of 
vapid  utterances,  so  common  in  formal  oratory, 
of  attempts  at  mere  rhetoric,  and  of  the  general 
lack  of  unity  and  coherence  so  common  in  public 
speech,  are  thus  avoided.  "I  believe  that  the 
next  generation,"  says  President  Hadley  of  Yale, 
"will  recognize  that  precision  of  thought  is  what 
distinguishes  the  first-rate  speaker  from  the 
second-rate  speaker;  and  that  this  precision  can  be 
obtained  if,  instead  of  hurling  facts  of  science  or  Ian- 


4  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

guage  or  history  at  his  impervious  skull,  we  open 
his  eyes  to  the  infinite  possibilities  of  close  thought 
and  precise  expression  in  all  fields  of  knowledge."1 

3.  //  encourages  thorough  thinking. — It  is  highly 
essential  that  you  know  what  you  are  talking  about 
in  a  debate.     Superficial  knowledge  is  easily  de- 
tected by  your  audience.     You  must  "drink  deep 
from  the  Pierian  spring"  if  you  would  succeed  in 
a  debate.     Our  foremost  forensic  speakers  in  Con- 
gress and  elsewhere  have  often  greatly  astonished 
their  audiences  with  their  thorough  knowledge  of 
the  facts  and  circumstances  related  to  the  subject 
under  discussion. 

4.  Debating  produces  broad-mindedness  and  tolera- 
tion.— It  does  this  by  compelling  attention  to  both 
sides  of  a  question — for  any  really  debatable  ques- 
tion always  has  two  sides.     Practice  in  debate  cul- 
tivates the  habit  of  looking  at  truth,  not  in  isolated 
and  fragmentary  forms,  but  in  all  its  relationships. 
It  is  unfortunate  for  any  man  or  class  of  men  to 
be  placed  under  such  conditions  that  their  opin- 
ions are  given  out  as  authoritative  and  received 
as  such — or,  if  not  so  received,  are  delivered  when 
no  opportunity  is  afforded  for. their  utterances  to 
be  disputed.     Hence  the  tendency  of  preachers  and 
teachers  to  become  dogmatic  and  narrow.     Law- 
yers, on  the  other  hand,  are,  as  a  class,  liberal- 
minded  and  tolerant.     Is  not  this  because  of  the 
practice  in  debate  that  their  profession  affords? 
The  hard  knocks  they  give  and  receive  make  them 
tolerant  of  antagonistic  views.     So,   the  practice 

1  Harper's  Magazine  for  June,  1905. 


INTRODUCTION  5 

that  students  have  in  discussing  either  the  affirma- 
tive or  negative  side  of  a  debatable  question  tends 
to  remove  unfounded  prejudice  and  narrowness. 
The  trained  mind  is  broad,  impartial,  and  compre- 
hensive in  its  vision ;  and  these  are  the  elements  of 
mind  necessary  to  draw  conclusions  and  solve 
problems. 

5.  Lastly,  debating  has  a  practical  value. — For  the 
lawyer,  minister,  teacher,  salesman — for  every  one 
—there  is  no  form  of  public  speaking  that  is  of 
greater  value  than  skill  in  oral  argument.  Scores 
of  public  men  have  gone  on  record  by  attesting  to 
the  value  of  debating  in  the  old  literary  societies 
when  they  were  students.  And  our  successful  men 
of  the  future  will  come  out  of  our  present  debating 
societies.  The  man  who  can  think  on  his  feet  and 
who  can  deliver  his  thoughts  in  a  forcible  and  ef- 
fective manner  can  usually  get  what  he  wants. 
Thorough  preparation,  logical  thinking,  and  accu- 
rate diction,  combined  with  a  persuasive  and  effec- 
tive delivery,  furnish  an  open  sesame  to  leadership 
and  success  in  any  worthy  endeavor. 

II.    THE    ELEMENTS   OF    DEBATE 

Whenever  people  disagree  in  a  discussion,  and 
produce  reasons  to  support  their  respective  views, 
they  are  debating.  Debate  is,  therefore,  a  far  more 
common  exercise,  in  all  relations  of  life,  than  we 
are  wont  to  think.  Its  object  is  to  discover  truth, 
to  determine  upon  which  side  of  a  given  question 
the  truth  lies.  Debating  is  not  contentiousness; 


6  HOW   TO    DEBATE     * 

it  is  a  logical  discussion  for  the  purpose  of  elucidat- 
ing thought  or  influencing  action.  "  Argument,  in 
the  sense  of  controversy,  seems  to  be,  on  the  whole, 
less  seriously  taken  than  it  used  to  be;  argument, 
in  the  sense  of  care  in  forming  opinions,  seems  to 
be,  on  the  whole,  more  seriously  cultivated."1  Even 
in  societies  organized  for  the  purpose,  debate  should 
have  for  its  object  the  vindication  of  some  truth, 
and  the  question  should  be  seriously  disputed. 

Since  those  who  engage  in  a  debate  are  seekers 
of  truth,  it  is  pertinent  to  inquire,  What  is  meant 
by  the  truth?  And  in  this  connection  a  few  other 
terms  need  explanation: 

1.  Facts  are  entities,  relationships,  or  any  phe- 
nomena that  actually  exist.     We  see  the  stars.     If 
stars  are  real  and  actually  exist,  their  existence  is 
a  fact.     Stars  shine.     This  expresses  a  relationship 
between  two  facts. 

2.  Ideas  and  opinions  are  merely  man's  con- 
ception of  these  facts  and  relationships.     Stars  are 
suns  with  planets  revolving  around  them.     Perhaps. 
1 '  If  a  man  die  shall  he  live  again  ?"     We  think,  hope, 
and  preach  that  he  will.     However,  many  persons 
remain  unconvinced. 

3.  When  our  opinions  agree  with  the  facts  they 
are  called  truths.     Columbus  discovered  America. 
This  is  an  undisputed  fact. 

4.  A  Proposition  is  the  expression  of  relationship 
between  two  or  more  ideas.     Radium  cures  cancer. 
A  proposition  may  be  true  or  it  may  not  be  true. 

1  Sidgwick,  The  Process  of  Argument,  p.  197. 


INTRODUCTION  7 

5.  An  Assertion  is  an  affirmation  or  a  denial  with- 
out proof.     A  republic  is  the  best  form  of  govern- 
ment.    If  no  proof  is  offered,  it  is  an  assertion. 

6.  An  Assumption  is  an  opinion  accepted  as  true 
without  proof.     A  straight  line  is  the  shortest  line 
between  two  points. 

7.  A  Presumption  is  a  statement  considered  true 
until  proved  otherwise.     A  man  is  presumed  to 
know  the  law.    A  nation  should  protect  its  citizens. 

8.  Proof  is  sufficient  reason  for  asserting  a  proposi- 
tion as  true.     It  includes  evidence  and  argument.1 

9.  Evidence  is  any  data  from  which  an  inference 
may  be  drawn. 

10.  Argumentation  is  the  process  of  establishing 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  a  proposition. 

11.  Debating  is  the  science  and  art  of  producing 
in  others,  through  proper  appeals  to  the  intellect 
and  emotions,  by  means  of  evidence  and  argument, 
a  belief  in  the  ideas  which  we  wish  them  to  accept. 

Note  that  the  foregoing  definition  denominates 
debating  as  both  a  science  and  an  art .  * '  A  science, ' ' 
says  Jevons,  "  teaches  us  to  know,  and  an  art  to 
do."  In  discovering  and  classifying  the  means 
whereby  a  man's  understanding  is  convinced  and 
his  feelings  moved,  we  are  dealing  with  debate  as 
a  science;  in  employing  these  means  as  applied 
to  a  given  question,  we  are  dealing  with  debate  as 
an  art.  And  these  two  processes  are  inseparable 
in  debating.  The  debater  must  both  acquire  and 
give;  he  must  be  able  both  to  find  reasons  and  to 

1  Wharton,  Evidence,  p.  3. 


8  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

express  those  reasons  to  a  hearer  or  hearers  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  induce  belief. 

But  belief  is  often  not  sufficient.  An  individual, 
a  jury,  or  an  audience  may  be  convinced  of  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  a  proposition,  and  yet  there  may 
be  no  change  in  conduct.  We  may  be  convinced 
that  there  is  poverty  about  us  and  that  it  is  our 
duty  to  aid,  and  yet  not  contribute  a  cent  for  its 
relief. 

I  see  the  right,  and  I  approve  it,  too, 

Condemn  the  wrong,  and  yet  the  wrong  pursue. 

Except  in  a  purely  academic  discussion,  where 
truth  alone  is  the  ultimate  goal,  the  task  of  the 
debater  is  not  completed  until  his  auditors  act 
upon  their  belief.  Human  conduct  depends  more 
upon  arousing  the  emotions  than  upon  satisfying 
the  intellect.  Man  acts  because  his  will  has  been 
stimulated.  We  do  what  we  will  to  do.  Passion 
and  prejudice,  fear  and  hate,  love  and  sympathy, 
move  mankind  to  acts  of  crime  and  to  deeds  of 
heroism  more  frequently  than  statistics  and  logic. 
Many  people  pride  themselves  on  their  intellect, 
and  state  with  much  gusto  that  they  act  only  after 
due  deliberation  and  from  motives  which  have  ap- 
pealed to  their  reason,  and  scorn  to  be  moved  by 
any  other  means.  There  are  such  individuals,  and 
their  tribe  is  increasing.  But  the  normal  individ- 
ual acts  when  his  attention  is  centered  on  an  act 
and  there  are  no  conflicting  impressions.  We  act 
when  only  one  idea  or  side  of  a  proposition  domi- 


INTRODUCTION  9 

nates  our  attention.  Deliberation  invariably  in- 
hibits conduct.  Thus  we  see  that  action  is  not 
the  result  of  overwhelming  evidence  and  argu- 
ment, nor  of  aroused  emotion,  alone,  but  may  be 
due  to  either  and  most  frequently  to  both. 

It  may  be  said  that  formal  and  interscholastic 
debates  are  primarily  and  fundamentally  infor- 
mational and  academic,  and,  therefore,  no  attempt 
is  made  to  influence  the  audience  to  action.  The 
nature  of  the  questions  discussed  and  the  personnel 
of  the  audience  preclude  any  immediate  action; 
but  an  audience  can  and  does  register  its  choice, 
and  to  choose  is  a  volitional  act  as  much  as  that 
resulting  in  some  form  of  physical  action.  It 
should  be  added  that  emotional  appeals  alone,  with 
an  audience  of  even  average  intelligence,  are  in- 
effective unless  such  appeals  are  based  upon  and 
naturally  follow  a  course  of  reasoning.  A  debater 
who  continually  appeals  to  our  love  of  home  and 
mother,  our  reverence  for  our  ancestors,  our  pride 
in  our  country,  or  presents  to  our  imagination  vivid 
pictures  to  influence  our  passion  and  arouse  our 
prejudice,  in  lieu  of  sound  logic,  we  unhesitatingly 
label  as  a  weak  debater. 

Persuasion,  however,  is  not  without  its  proper 
function  in  debating,  and  a  subsequent  chapter 
will  deal  with  this  important  topic. 


THE   PROPOSITION — MATTER   AND   FORM 

A  PROPOSITION  necessary  in  debate— A  de- 
-*i  batable  question  implies  that  a  given  proposi- 
tion is  maintained  by  one  and  doubted  or  denied 
by  another.  It  implies  a  disagreement,  else  there 
is  nothing  to  debate.  In  the  questions  on  which 
people  disagree,  as  discussions  arise  in  every-day 
life,  there  is  ordinarily  no  stated  proposition  to 
formulate  the  matter  in  dispute;  and  one  of  the 
first  things  that  one  skilled  in  argument  will  do  is 
to  reduce  the  discussion  to  such  form,  whereupon 
one  of  three  situations  will  develop:  either  the 
disputants'  views  are  (i)  identical,  or  (2)  they  are 
discussing  two  wholly  different  propositions,  or 
(3)  they  take  issue  squarely  with  each  other.  In 
the  first  instance,  the  formulation  of  the  subject 
under  discussion  into  a  clear  statement  removes 
any  seeming  disagreement.  In  the  second  in- 
stance, the  discussion  would  be  as  if  two  trains 
passed  each  other  in  opposite  directions  on  parallel 
tracks.  In  the  last  instance,  there  is  what  may  be 
called  a  debate  "head  on  " — a  direct,  square  collision. 

A  proper  subject  for  debate,  then,  must  be  capa- 


THE    PROPOSITION  n 

ble  of  affirmation  and  denial,  and  a  proposition 
is  the  only  rhetorical  form  that  lends  itself  to 
this  requirement.  A  proposition  is  "a  form  of 
speech  in  which  a  predicate  is  affirmed  or  denied 
of  a  subject";  it  is  a  statement  that  something  is 
or  is  not.  And  something  must  always  be  predi- 
cated of  a  subject  in  order  to  raise  an  issue  for 
debate.  "The  Chinese  in  America"  might  be  a 
proper  subject  for  a  lecture  or  an  oration,  but  in 
order  to  debate  the  Chinese  question  some  proposi- 
tion regarding  the  Chinese  in  America,  as  "The 
Chinese  Exclusion  laws  should  be  repealed,"  must 
be  laid  down.  You  cannot  argue  a  mere  term  or 
phrase.  You  may  explain  a  term,  but  only  a 
proposition  is  susceptible  of  proof  or  disproof. 
The  advocate,  for  example,  may  need  to  make  clear 
by  exposition  what  larceny  or  arson  is,  but  he  can- 
not argue  the  terms  "arson"  and  "larceny";  he 
can  argue  that  "This  man  is  guilty  of  arson,"  or 
that  "My  client  is  innocent  of  larceny."  "Argu- 
mentation attempts  not  only  to  explain  why  cer- 
tain ideas  are  as  they  are,  but  also  to  convince  the 
understanding  that  they  are  as  they  are,  or  that 
they  ought  to  be  as  they  are  not."1  And  in  order 
to  do  this,  argument  requires  for  a  starting-point 
the  affirmation  or  denial  of  a  definite  proposition. 

SELECTING   THE    PROPOSITION 

As  questions  for  debate  arise  in  practical  life, 
one   does   not   usually   select   the   subjects — they 

1  Brewster,  Introduction  to  Specimens  of  Narration, 


12  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

come.  But  whenever  the  subjects  are  to  be  de- 
liberately chosen,  as  in  debating  societies  and  class 
exercises,  some  care  should  be  used  in  selecting 
questions,  and  some  general  suggestions  may  well 
be  heeded.  What  sort  of  questions  should  be 
chosen?  Let  us  partially  answer  this  question  by 
a  process  of  exclusion,  and  consider  certain  classes 
of  subjects  to  be  avoided  for  formal  debate. 

i.  The  proposition  should  be  debatable. — In  the 
first  place,  it  must  not  be  self-evident.  A  bald 
example  of  such  propositions  would  be  a  geometri- 
cal theorem.  Or,  "  Resolved,  that  the  Caucasian 
is  a  white  man,"  is  not  a  debatable  question.  There 
are  no  black  Caucasians.  Nor  could  any  one  ad- 
vantageously debate  such  obvious  propositions  as, 
"Resolved,  that  Shakespeare  was  a  great  poet"; 
or,  "Resolved,  that  the  murder  of  President 
McKinley  was  reprehensible."  A  question  not 
having  two  sides  seriously  disputed,  or  one  whose 
obviousness  is  concealed  by  the  form  of  state- 
ment, should  never  be  chosen  for  debate ;  in  short, 
the  question  should  be  really  debatable. 

Secondly,  the  proposition  must  be  capable  of 
approximate  proof  or  disproof.  Although  the 
truth  or  error  of  most  debatable  propositions,  as 
they  arise  in  real  life,  cannot  be  demonstrated  with 
mathematical  exactness,  yet  those  questions  which 
are  capable  of  only  a  slight  degree  of  approxima- 
tion to  proof  should  be  avoided.  For  example, 
take  such  time-worn  questions  as,  "Resolved,  that 
the  pulpit  affords  more  opportunities  for  eloquence 
than  the  bar";  "Resolved,  that  the  pen  is  mightier 


THE    PROPOSITION  13 

than  the  sword."  So,  vague  questions  of  taste,  as 
the  relative  merits  of  two  great  poets,  or  of  two 
great  generals:  while  such  questions  may  be  in- 
teresting and  profitable  for  general  discussion,  they 
are  unsuited  for  formal  debate.  The  proof  is  too 
elusive  and  indefinite ;  neither  side  can  come  within 
range  of  a  common  object  for  attack  or  defense. 
"Does  the  public  speaker  exert  a  greater  influence 
than  the  writer?"  is  a  question  submitted  in  a 
recent  treatise  on  debate.  Now  the  natural  course 
of  events  in  the  argument  of  such  a  question  is  for 
the  affirmative  to  heap  up  examples  showing  the 
influence  of  the  public  speaker,  and  the  negative 
to  adduce  examples  showing  the  influence  exerted 
by  the  writer.  The  affirmative  might  also  point  out 
certain  disadvantages  under  which  the  writer 
must  labor,  as  compared  with  the  public  speaker, 
and  the  negative  would  adopt  a  vice  versa  treat- 
ment. The  question  states  a  comparison,  but  no 
common  standard  for  comparison  could  be  found, 
and  hence  no  satisfactory  proof  or  disproof  is 
possible. 

2.  Should  be  interesting. — And  first,  to  the  de- 
bater himself.  To  be  interesting,  questions  should 
be  selected  that  are  within  range  of  the  disputants' 
knowledge  and  comprehension,  especially  those  for 
class  practice;  the  student  should  select  questions 
that  appeal  to  him.  To  the  average  high-school 
boy  or  girl  such  topics  as,  Athletics,  Dress  Reform, 
Moving  Pictures,  Jitneys,  and  the  Elective  System 
of  Studies  are  more  interesting  than  Regional 
Banking  Systems,  Single  Tax,  or  The  MontessorJ 


U  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

Method  of  Teaching.  Questions  arising  from  daily 
class  work  in  history,  civics,  and  literature  are 
often  of  very  live  interest. 

Secondly,  the  subject  for  debate  should  be  of 
interest  to  the  audience.  This  requirement  has 
special  bearing  on  questions  for  debate  before  a 
public  gathering.  The  speaker  owes  something 
to  those  who  listen  to  the  debate.  Small  crowds 
are  the  rule  at  many  public  discussions  of  this 
kind.  To  encourage  a  better  attendance,  sub- 
jects of  special  interest  to  the  immediate  com- 
munity should  be  selected.  What  question  is 
the  city  now  interested  in?  What  city,  State,  or 
national  problems  are  being  argued  on  the  street 
corner?  Questions  for  public  debate  should  arise 
from  the  needs  of  the  community.  Questions  of 
pressing  interest  one  hundred  years  ago  may  be 
dead  issues  now.  Questions  must  have  current 
interest. 

3.  Must  be  worth  while  to  the  student. — In  view 
of  what  has  previously  been  said  regarding  the 
object  and  nature  of  debating,  this  caution  may 
seem  superfluous;  but  observation  shows  that  de- 
bating societies  constantly  violate  this  rule.  Such 
questions  as,  "Resolved,  that  ambition  is  produc- 
tive of  more  good  than  evil,"  that  "The  cow  is  a 
more  useful  animal  than  the  horse,"  as  subjects 
for  debate  are  in  line  with  the  grave  discussions 
of  the  medieval  theologians  on  such  questions  as, 
"How  many  angels  can  stand  on  the  point  of  a 
needle  at  one  time?"  The  "corner  grocery" 
Solons  may  choose  to  discuss  questions  whose  only 


THE   PROPOSITION  15 

opportunity  for  debate  is  furnished  by  some  in- 
genious play  upon  words,  but  such  aimless  ques- 
tions are  unworthy  the  attention  of  serious  men. 
The  trouble  comes,  in  part  at  least,  from  viewing 
debating  as  a  mental  exercise  in  public  speaking, 
rather  than  as  a  practical  means  to  an  end.  In  a 
country  where  public  opinion  is  the  mainspring  of 
government,  where  great  economic,  social,  and 
political  questions  are  pressing  for  solution,  and 
where  the  solution  must  come  mainly  through  that 
body  of  educated  young  men  constantly  being  in- 
fused into  its  body  politic — why  should  any  asso- 
ciation of  school  or  college  students  waste  its 
energies  in  debating  subjects  which  call  forth 
only  a  technical  or  theoretical  treatment,  or  serve 
only  as  means  for  an  ingenious  display  of  so-called 
wit? 

4.  Familiar  questions  should  be  selected  for  be- 
ginners.— The  beginner  must  needs  pay  attention 
to  the  form  and  technique  of  debate,  and  should  be 
permitted  to  devote  most  of  his  attention  to  that, 
and  not  to  the  gathering  of  information  through 
research.  The  child  plays  very  simple  selections 
of  music  until  he  has  mastered  the  technique  of 
the  keyboard.  Subjects  that  require  much  read- 
ing should  be  left  for  the  experienced  debater. 
Again,  the  familiar  subject  will  encourage  the  young 
debater  first  to  utilize  the  knowledge  he  already  pos- 
sesses before  "reading  up"  on  the  more  difficult 
subjects.  This  should  be  his  practice  throughout 
life,  no  matter  what  proposition  he  cares  to  defend 
or  upon  what  topic  he  wishes  to  speak. 


16  HOW   TO   DEBATE 

STATING  THE   PROPOSITION 

1.  The  proposition  should  be  clearly,  briefly,  and 
simply  phrased. — It  should  be  so  stated  as  to  indi- 
cate the  issue  for  debate.     In  deliberative  bodies 
the  issue  is  expressed  in  the  form  of  a  motion,  a 
resolution,  or  a  bill;  in  legal  practice,  by  the  plead- 
ings in  the  case. 

Propositions  should  be  void  of  any  hidden,  tech- 
nical, or  unusual  meaning  which  will  permit  one 
side  to  hide  behind  the  complex  or  involved  phrase- 
ology. A  short,  simple  proposition  is  always  de- 
sirable. Time  spent  on  wording  a  question  in  the 
simplest  and  briefest  form  is  time  well  spent,  for 
it  will  make  the  selection  of  the  special  issues  an 
easier  task.  The  following  "wordy"  statement, 
for  example,  is  undesirable:  "Resolved,  that  further 
admission  of  immigrants  to  the  United  States,  so 
long  as  the  congestion  of  alien  groups  persists  in 
our  large  cities,  should  be  subject  to  Federal  con- 
trol of  such  arrivals  for  a  definite  period  of  years 
for  purposes  of  better  distribution  with  regard  to 
the  requirements  of  the  different  sections  of  the 
country." 

2.  Should  contain  no  ambiguous  terms. — The  prop- 
osition  should   be   stated  in   clear,    unambiguous 
language,  so  that  the  issue  raised  is  plainly  indi- 
cated.    Otherwise  we  shall  have  a  debate,  not  on 
the  proposition,  but  on  its  meaning.     This  is  al- 
ways unfortunate.     It  is  a  trying  ordeal  for  any 
audience  to  hear  students  carry  on  a  debate  which 
is  nothing  more  than  continuous  quibbling  over  the 


THE    PROPOSITION  17 

meaning  of  terms.  Sometimes  the  young  speaker 
—the  " smart"  debater — goes  out  of  his  way  to 
evolve,  by  a  narrow  or  strained  construction,  some 
unusual  and  surprising  meaning  to  be  applied  to 
terms  used.  But  when  this  sort  of  "debating"  is 
carried  to  excess  it  is  a  questionable  preparation 
for  real  life.  Reasonable  people  do  not  debate 
words,  but  ideas.  And  if,  unfortunately,  there  are 
ambiguous  words  in  the  proposition  as  stated,  it 
is  far  better,  if  possible,  for  each  side  to  agree  on 
the  meaning  of  such  words  in  advance,  in  order 
that  the  discussion  may  proceed  on  the  issue 
itself. 

Therefore  great  care  should  be  exercised  in 
eliminating  all  ambiguous  words  in  stating  the 
proposition;  and  only  those  who  have  had  ex- 
perience can  realize  how  difficult  this  often  is. 
With  the  issue  clearly  in  mind,  it  is  sometimes 
exceedingly  difficult,  in  an  effort  for  due  concise- 
ness, to  state  the  proposition  so  that  the  question 
means  the  same  thing — for  that  is  the  point — to 
both  the  affirmative  and  negative  speakers.  As 
one  means  to  this  end,  avoid  the  use  of  general 
terms  that  have  no  generally  accepted  meaning. 
Such  current  expressions  as  the  "Monroe  Doctrine." 
"Imperialism,"  "Expansion,"  "Anarchy,"  might 
be  variously  defined.  A  proposition  for  debate  re- 
lating to  any  of  these  terms  should  be  stated  with 
more  defmiteness  than  the  terms  themselves  could 
possibly  express.  For  example,  in  a  debate  on  the 
question,  "Resolved,  that  all  anarchists  in  this 
country  should  be  deported  to  one  of  our  island 


i8  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

possessions,"  the  discussion  would  necessarily  turn 
on  the  special  question,  Who  are  "anarchists"? 

3.  Should  not  be  too  broad. — Questions  should  be 
selected  that  can  be  adequately  treated  in  the  time 
allotted   for   the   debate.     Subjects   dealing   with 
" World    Peace,"    "The    Late   War'  in   Europe," 
"Socialism,"  etc.,  are  too  broad  in  their  scope  to 
be  satisfactorily  discussed  in  the  short  time  usually 
agreed  upon.     For  this  reason,  and  many  others, 
the  constitutionality  of  a  question  is  always  con- 
ceded.    In    every    question    where    the    constitu- 
tionality may  be  an  issue  it  is  better  to  append  it; 
as,  "Resolved,  that  the  several  States  should  adopt 
a  schedule  of  minimum  wages  for  unskilled  laborers, 
constitutionality  conceded . ' ' 

4.  Should  contain  one  central  idea. — The  reason 
for  this  caution  is  obvious.     It  is  based  on  the  rule 
in  deliberative  bodies  which  allows  a  member  to 
divide  a  motion  that  contains  more  than  one  issue, 
so  that  the  assembly  need  debate  but  one  question 
at  a  time.     Sometimes  in  formal  debate  two  main 
propositions  are  included  in  the  statement  of  the 
question,  with  a  view  of  thus  making  the  question 
more  evenly  divided.     But  unless  such  a  purpose 
is  in  mind,  avoid  a  compound  or  complex  state- 
ment.    For  example,   "Resolved  that  the  United 
States  Government  should  inaugurate  a  compre- 
hensive plan  for  the  improvement  of  our  inland 
waterways,  and  that  the  Mississippi  River  should 
be  made  navigable  for  deep-sea  vessels  as  far  north 
as   St.    Louis."     Plainly,    here   are   two   separate 
propositions,    and   either   of   them   would   furnish 


THE    PROPOSITION  19 

ample  opportunity  for  an  hour's  debate.  Again,  a 
question  may  be  stated  singly,  on  its  face,  and  in- 
volve several  definite  issues.  For  example,  "Re- 
solved, that  President  Wilson's  foreign  policy  be 
approved."  A  moment's  analysis  of  the  term 
"foreign  policy"  will  show  that  our  attitude  toward 
Mexico,  Germany,  England,  and  other  countries, 
not  to  mention  other  matters  of  foreign  policy  dealt 
with  during  President  Wilson's  administration,  are 
all  included  in  the  statement  of  this  question. 

5.  Should  be  stated  affirmatively. — To  affirm  a 
denial  is  always  a  weak  statement,  for  no  one,  in 
the  first  instance,  can  well  prove  a  negation.  To 
put  the  matter  in  another  way,  the  affirmative 
should  be  called  upon  to  present  a  constructive 
line  of  argument.  Now  in  many  questions  of  pure 
fact  one  may  affirm  one  side  or  the  other  of  a  matter 
in  dispute.  But  in  those  questions  where  a  change 
in  present  conditions  or  policies  is  proposed,  the 
proposed  change  should  be  affirmed.  For  example, 
if  one  were  to  affirm  that  "the  formation  of  a 
national  debating  league  is  undesirable,"  he  is 
placed  in  the  position  of  defending  an  existing  con- 
dition before  it  has  been  attacked.  In  questions 
of  reform  or  of  policy  the  test  would  be:  Does  the 
affirmative  of  this  proposition  propose  any  change 
in  existing  conditions? 

EXERCISES 

Let  the  student  determine  wherein  the  following  questions 
(collated  from  treatises  on  debate  and  from  published  lists) 


20  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

are  open  to  criticism,  either  as  to  form  of  statement  or  as  to 
subject-matter: 

1.  Is  photography  of  greater  practical  value  than  mechanical 
drawing? 

2.  Was  Titian  a  greater  artist  than  Correggio? 

3.  Is  the  Wagnerian  school  entitled  to  a  permanent  place  in 
classical  interpretation? 

4.  Is  Art  the  handmaid  of  Science? 

5.  The  best  way  to  solve  our  so-called  race  problem  is  to 
stop  talking  about  it. 

6.  In  the  next  Presidential  election,  Democracy  should  be 
triumphant. 

7.  Was  Burke  a  greater  orator  than  Fox? 

8.  Are  all  men  "born  free  and  equal"? 

9.  Is  Quo  Vadis  a  more  powerful  novel  than  Ben  Hur? 

10.  Resolved,  that  if  conscience  says  a  thing  is  right,  it  is 
right. 

n.  Resolved,  that  the  time  has  come  when  in  place  of  our 
present  robber  tariff  we  should  adopt  the  saner  policy  of  tariff 
for  revenue  only. 

12.  Resolved,  that  whenever  Congress  has  to  deal  with 
questions  involving  the  possibilities  of  war,    jingoism   and 
politics  play  too  prominent  a  part. 

13.  Resolved,  that  there  is  more  happiness  than  misery  in 
life. 

14.  Railroads  in  the  United  States  should  not  be  owned  by 
the  Government. 

15.  Reciprocity  tariff  treaties  should  displace  our  present 
protective  tariff,  and  free  trade  should  be  instituted. 

16.  Resolved,  that  the  cow  is  more  useful  than  the  horse. 

17.  Resolved,  that  the  farmer  is  of  more  benefit  to  the  world 
than  the  merchant. 

1 8.  Resolved,  that  women  should  have  equal  rights  with  men. 

19.  Resolved,   that   the   rural   community    centers   are   a 
greater  help  to  the  farmer  than  the  town  or  city  centers. 

20.  Resolved,  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  should 
be  elected  for  one  term  of  seven  years,  and  be  ineligible  for 
re-election. 


THE    PROPOSITION  21 

21.  Resolved,   that  men  and  women  should  have  equal 
suffrage. 

22.  Resolved,  that  labor  of  prisoners  in   the   State   peni- 
tentiary should  be  utilized  in  improving  the  highways  of  the 
State. 

23.  Resolved,  that  prohibition  is  a  failure. 

24.  Resolved,  that  written  term  examinations  should  be 
instituted  in  our  high  school. 

25.  Resolved,  that  the  sharing  of  public  funds  for  purposes 
which  ignore  the  constitutional  separation  of  church  and  state 
is  a  menace  to  our  Federal,  State,  and  municipal  institutions 
and  should  be  abandoned  wherever  inaugurated  and  prevented 
wherever  existing  or  proposed. 

Make  a  proposition  that  will  stand  the  tests,  on  the  follow- 
ing subjects: 

(a)  Entrance  examinations  for  colleges. 

(b)  Honor  system. 

(c)  Intercollegiate  football. 

(d)  European  war. 

(e)  Jitney  cars. 

(/)  Convict  labor  camps. 

(g)  Poverty. 

(h)  Debating  in  the  high  school. 

(*)  Examination  exemptions. 

(j)  Newspapers. 

(k)  Juvenile  courts. 


II 

ANALYSIS    OF   THE   QUESTION 

GIVEN  a  good  subject  for  debate,  stated  af- 
firmatively and  in  unambiguous  language,  the 
next  step  for  the  debater  is  to  ask  himself  such 
questions  as  these:  Just  what  does  this  question 
mean?  What  issue  or  issues  are  raised  by  it? 
What  must  be  proved  to  establish  the  affirmative 
of  the  question?  and,  What  must  be  proved  to  up- 
hold the  negative?  In  other  words,  he  must  an- 
alyze the  question.  Analysis  is  the  process  where- 
by the  proposition  for  debate  is  resolved  into  its 
constituent  elements.  It  is  a  process  of  critical 
examination,  in  order  to  extract  the  essence  of  the 
question  and  to  ascertain  the  single  propositions 
that  enter  into  the  argument  of  the  proposition  as 
a  whole. 

Now,  analysis  enters  into  debating  at  every  step, 
in  the  development  of  the  direct  argument  and 
in  rebuttal.  The  skilful  debater  will  not  only 
analyze  the  argument  for  himself,  but  at  every 
point  will  analyze  the  argument  of  his  opponent, 
so  that,  as  the  debate  proceeds,  he  is  able  to  state, 
concisely  and  clearly,  the  point  toward  which  the 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    QUESTION    23 

argument  leads,  and  the  stage  of  development  in 
the  arguments  on  either  side.  "An  analysis  of  the 
debate  at  this  point,"  he  will  frequently  be  led  to 
observe,  "shows  that  the  affirmative  rest,  their  ar- 
gument on  such  and  such  lines  of  proof,  and  the 
negative  base  their  contention  on  such  and  such 
points."  He  thus  makes  plain  to  the  audience  the 
relation  of  his  further  argument  to  what  has  pre- 
ceded, and  points  out  any  fallacies  in  the  argument 
of  his  opponent.  The  well-known  opening  words 
of  Webster,  in  his  famous  Reply  to  Hayne,  is  il- 
lustrative : 

When  the  mariner  has  been  tossed  for  many  days  in 
thick  weather  and  on  an  unknown  sea,  he  naturally 
avails  himself  of  the  first  pause  in  the  storm,  the  earliest 
glance  of  the  sun,  to  take  his  latitude  and  ascertain  how 
far  the  elements  have  driven  him  from  his  true  course. 
Let  us  imitate  this  prudence,  and,  before  we  float  farther 
on  the  waves  of  this  debate,  refer  to  the  point  from  which 
we  departed,  that  we  may  at  least  be  able  to  conjecture 
where  we  now  are.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  resolu- 
tion before  the  Senate. 

So  Lincoln,  in  his  "Divided  House"  speech,  be- 
gan as  follows: 

If  we  could  first  know  where  we  are,  and  whither  we 
are  tending,  we  could  better  judge  what  to  do,  and  how 
to  do  it. 

The  analysis  now  referred  to,  however,  is  that 
preliminary  analysis  which  should  make  clear  the 
meaning  of  the  question,  bring  out  the  debatable 


24  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

issue  or  issues,  show  the  lines  of  proof  essential 
to  a  given  side,  and  also  show  the  arguments  on 
the  opposing  side  that  need  be  met. 

Now,  this  process  of  preliminary  analysis  is  too 
often  neglected  by  the  inexperienced  debater.  A 
student  is  apt  to  work  out  lines  of  proof  before 
he  knows,  from  careful  analysis,  just  what  proof 
is  required.  He  may  have  read  widely  on  the 
question,  but  he  has  failed  to  do  that  preliminary 
thinking  for  himself  which  shows  him  the  bearings 
and  limitations  of  the  discussion. 

STEPS    IN   ANALYSIS 

All  argument  consists  in  leading  another's 
thought  over  the  same  course  your  own  thought 
has  pursued  in  reaching  a  certain  conclusion.  An 
analysis  of  the  question  will  show  the  point  to  be 
reached  and  the  ground  to  be  covered  in  reaching 
it.  It  will  show  the  work  to  be  done,  and  how 
it  is  to  be  done.  "The  first  step  which  presents 
itself  in  the  discussion  of  any  subject  is  to  state 
distinctly,  and  with  precision,  what  the  subject 
is,  and,  where  prejudice  and  misrepresentation 
have  been  exerted,  to  distinguish  it  accurately  from 
what  it  is  not"1 

The  introductory  work  of  analysis  will  vary 
greatly  with  the  nature  of  the  question,  the  famili- 
arity of  the  audience  with  the  subject,  and  the 
time-limit  placed  on  the  debate.  But  the  follow- 

1  Erskine,  On  the  Trial  of  Thomas  Paine. 


ANALYSIS   OF   THE   QUESTION    25 

ing   steps    are    usually    desirable   in    analyzing   a 
proposition  for  debate: 

1.  Give  an  exposition  of  the  origin  and  history 
of  the  question. 

2.  Define  the  question. 

3.  Exclude  all  irrelevant  matters. 

4.  State  the  points  that  are  admitted  by  both 
sides. 

5.  List  the  main  contentions  of  both  sides. 

6.  State  the  main  issues  in  the  discussion. 

i.  Origin  and  history  of  the  question. — These  two 
matters,  although  given  as  two  separate  steps  in 
analysis  in  most  texts  on  argumentation,  are  so 
closely  related  that  they  may  be  considered  as  a 
single  step. 

The  origin  of  a  question  really  results  from  its 
history.  It  raises  such  queries  as:  How  does  the 
question  arise  at  this  time  as  a  subject  for  debate? 
What  place  does  it  hold  in  current  discussion? 
What  is  the  nature  and  trend  of  public  discussion 
regarding  it?  And  these  queries,  in  turn,  involve 
the  presentation  of  a  history  of  the  question  suffi- 
cient to  give  the  audience  a  background  for  the 
argument.  Thus,  the  question  of  a  literacy  test 
for  immigrants  would  require  a  general  statement 
of  the  immigration  problem  in  its  relation  to  the 
other  great  sociological  problems  that  confront  our 
nation  to-day,  and  a  brief  history  of  immigration 
and  immigration  legislation,  with  a  statement  of 
existing  restrictive  measures.  Again,  in  the  ques- 
tion, "Resolved,  that  the  United  States  should 
establish  a  protectorate  over  Mexico,"  a  brief  po- 


26  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

litical  history  of  Mexico  for  the  past  one  hundred 
years,  and  a  statement  of  the  events  which  have 
given  rise  to  the  present  trouble,  could  be  nar- 
rated to  advantage. 

The  exposition  of  the  origin  and  history  of  the 
question  must  be  (i)  relatively  brief.  Most  be- 
ginners give  too  much  detail.  Present  only  those 
matters  that  are  immediately  necessary  for  an 
understanding  of  the  question.  (2)  It  must  be 
fair  and  impartial.  No  material  fact  should  be 
concealed,  and  the  statement  should  be  wholly 
non-partisan.  Facts  of  history  are  common  prop- 
erty and  can  be  used  by  either  side  as  evidence  in 
the  subsequent  argument. 

2.  Definition  of  the  question. — We  have  previous- 
ly noted  the  desirability  of  having  the  question 
for  debate  so  stated  that  it  means  the  same  thing 
to  both  sides.  Assuming  that  this  has  been  done 
as  well  as  desired  conciseness  will  allow,  it  rarely 
happens  that  some  of  the  terms  do  not  need  defin- 
ing, or  in  any  case  that  the  proposition  as  a  whole 
does  not  require  some  exposition  or  explanation. 

There  are  many  ways  of  defining.  The  first 
and  most  natural  step  is  to  consult  a  dictionary, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  clarifying  the  terms  used  in 
a  proposition  for  debate  a  dictionary  is  usually 
very  inadequate,  for  dictionary  definitions  deal 
largely  in  synonyms  and  also  fail  to  give  the  special 
or  transitory  meanings  of  particular  words  with 
reference  to  questions  of  current  discussion.  Again, 
a  purely  logical  definition,  by  which  is  meant  a 
concise  statement  of  the  trait  or  traits  most  essen- 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    QUESTION    27 

tial  to  an  object,  is  too  compact  for  an  unscientific 
mind. 

For  the  purpose  of  debating,  some  of  the  principal 
ways  of  supplementing  a  dictionary  or  a  logical 
definition  are: 

(1)  By  authority. — Men  who  are  recognized  as 
authorities  in  a  particular  field  of  knowl- 
edge are  of  great  service  in  giving  us  a 
usable  and  accurate  definition;    as  in  the 
preceding  chapter  Wharton  was  quoted  as 
authority  for  the  definition  of  " Proof." 

(2)  By  negation. — That  is,  a  term  or  proposition 
is  made  clearer  by  telling  what  it  is  not. 
"This  term,"  the  debater  says,  "does  not 
mean   this   or   this,    but   it   means   this." 
Voltaire  used  this  method  when  he  wittily 
remarked  that  the  Holy  Roman  Empire 
was  neither  holy,  nor  Roman,  nor  an  em- 
pire.    Likewise,  Professor  Huxley,  having 
asked  on  an  examination  paper,  "What  is 
a  lobster?"  a  student  replied  that  a  lobster 
was  a  red  fish  which  moved  backward. 
The  examiner  noted  that  this  was  a  very 
good  definition  but  for  three  things:  in  the 
first  place,  a  lobster  is  not  a  fish;    second, 
it  is  not  red;   and  third,  it  does  not  move 
backward. 

(3)  By    exemplification. — This    method    trans- 
forms the  abstract  phrase  into  a  concrete 
picture;  it  illustrates  by  citing  a  particular 
case.     Two  things  should  be  borne  in  mind 
when    this    method    is    used.     First,    the 


28  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

example  chosen  should  be  to  the  point;  it 
should  be  appropriate  and  typical.  Sec- 
ondly, it  should  be  within  the  range  of  the 
experience  of  the  hearers,  so  that  it  will  be 
understood  and  make  an  impression;  for 
this  is  the  purpose  of  illustration.  For 
example,  in  his  famous  Liverpool  speech 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  said: 

A  savage  is  a  man  of  one  story,  and  that  one 
story  a  cellar.  When  a  man  begins  to  be 
civilized  he  raises  another  story.  When  you 
Christianize  and  civilize  the  man,  you  put  story 
upon  story,  for  you  develop  faculty  after  faculty; 
and  you  have  to  supply  every  story  with  your 
productions. 

(4)  By  explication. — This  is  an  expository 
method.  It  explains  by  using  synonyms, 
or  analogy,  or  some  other  means  of  illumi- 
nating a  term  so  that  the  audience  will 
readily  see  the  meaning.  For  example,  in 
discussing  the  question,  "Is  the  World 
Growing  Better?"  Dr.  Henry  van  Dyke 
says: 

"Growing  better"  is  a  phrase  about  which  a 
company  of  college  professors  would  probably 
have  a  long  preliminary  dispute,  but  plain  peo- 
ple understand  it  well  enough  for  practical  pur- 
poses. There  are  three  factors  in  it.  When  we 
say  that  a  man  grows  better,  we  mean  that,  in 
the  main,  he  is  becoming  more  just,  and  careful 
to  do  the  right  thing;  more  kind,  and  ready 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    QUESTION    29 

to  do  the  helpful  thing;  more  self -con  trolled, 
and  willing  to  sacrifice  his  personal  will  to  the 
general  welfare.  Is  the  world  growing  better 
in  this  sense?  Is  there  more  justice,  more 
kindness;  more  self-restraint  among  the  in- 
habitants of  the  earth  than  in  the  days  of 
old? 

(5)  By  popular  usage. — Finally,  definition  must 
not  only  be  clear  and  intelligible,  it  must, 
above  all,  be  reasonable.  That  is,  in  the 
last  analysis  it  must  be  tested  by  the  popular 
or  common  understanding  of  the  terms  used. 
In  legal  practice,  it  is  true,  the  sole  issue 
may  sometimes  be  the  meaning  of  terms, 
and  the  case  is  tried  on  this  issue — as  in 
the  interpretation  of  words  or  clauses  in  a 
will.  But  in  formal  debating,  be  it  said 
once  more,  one  should  debate,  not  the  terms 
of  the  proposition,  but  the  proposition. 
True,  a  common  understanding  of  the 
terms  may  not  always  be  possible,  but  in 
any  event  the  preliminary  analysis  will 
show  just  where  the  affirmative  and  nega- 
tive differ  in  the  interpretation  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  they  can  then  fight  it  out,  if 
they  must,  on  that  line;  in  which  case  a 
reasonable,  clear,  and  striking  definition 
goes  far  toward  winning  the  debate.  But 
it  is  purposeless  and  silly  for  one  to  waste 
his  time  quibbling  over  terms  and  working 
out  hair-splitting  distinctions  that  convince 
nobody  and  weary  the  Jiearers. 


30  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

The  various  phases  and  methods  of  definition 
show  its  importance  in  debating.  In  his  recent 
course  of  Lowell  Institute  lectures  Prof.  William 
James,  of  Harvard,  emphasizes  the  fact  that 
"nine-tenths  of  the  bitterest  disputes  are  really 
about  definitions.  When  one  faction  loudly  as- 
serts that  a  certain  thing  is  so,  and  another  as 
loudly  proclaims  that  it  is  not,  the  trouble  usu- 
ally is  that  the  two  sides  understand  different 
things  by  the  word  or  phrase  in  question,  and 
that  each  is  right,  provided  its  own  definition 
be  adopted."  And  yet  one  should  be  careful 
about  defining  too  much;  it  is  well  to  assume 
average  intelligence  on  the  part  of  the  hearers. 
The  right  kind  of  definition  eliminates  confu- 
sion and  vagueness,  limits  the  proposition,  and 
puts  the  debaters  and  the  hearers  on  common 
ground. 

3.  Exclusion  of  irrelevant  matter. — In  many  ques- 
tions of  the  day  the  debater  must,  at  the  outset, 
ask  himself  such  questions  as:  What  ideas  usually 
connected  with  this  question  in  popular  discussion 
of  it  and  likely  to  connect  themselves  with  it,  are, 
after  all,  wholly  extraneous? — ideas,  that  is  to  say, 
which  the  opposing  side  may  not  in  the  first  in- 
stance admit,  but  which  in  fact  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  case.  In  political  questions,  for  example, 
whereon  people  disagree  in  part  by  reason  of  party 
affiliations,  we  shall  find  that  popular  discussions 
are  full  of  so-called  arguments  far  removed  from 
the  real  issues.  For  example,  in  the  question, 
"Resolved,  that  the  United  States  should  not  retain 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    QUESTION    31 

permanent  control  of  the  Philippine  Islands,"  the 
first  speaker  on  the  affirmative,  in  an  intercollegiate 
debate,  eliminated  extraneous  ideas  put  forth  in 
popular  discussion  and  reached  the  main  issue  as 
follows : 


The  issue  in  this  debate  is  not  the  wisdom  or  jus- 
tice of  our  past  action,  but  relates  to  a  policy  for 
the  future.  Whether  the  Paris  peace  commissioners, 
acting  under  the  advice  of  military  and  naval  ex- 
perts, did  right  or  wrong  in  demanding  from  Spain 
the  entire  Philippine  archipelago  instead  of  a  single 
base  for  a  naval  station,  is  not  the  question.  Whether 
the  President  and  Congress  were  justified  in  insisting 
upon  the  establishment  of  order  and  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  American  authority  in  the  islands,  is  not  the 
question.  We  are  there.  Our  government  is  the  only 
recognized  government  there.  And  the  question  is, 
shall  we  continue  a  policy  now  fully  inaugurated,  or 
shall  we  abandon  it  and  withdraw?  The  question  is, 
with  conditions  as  they  exist  to-day,  shall  the  United 
States  look  to  the  abandonment  and  relinquishment 
of  any  and  every  kind  of  authority  and  control  over 
the  Philippine  Islands? 

It  is  well  to  determine  clearly,  in  your  intro- 
ductory analysis,  what  you  are  not  obliged  to 
do  in  order  to  establish  your  case,  and  to  make 
this  plain  to  your  audience,  especially  when 
your  hearers  may  expect  more  proof  than  is 
necessary. 

Thus,  in  the  question,  ''Resolved,  that  a  tax 
should  be  placed  on  the  issue  of  the  State  banks/' 


32  HOW   TO  \DEBATE 

it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  that  taxation  on 
the  issues  of  all  banks  is  just  or  unjust,  nor 
whether  it  should  be  a  State  or  Federal  tax. 
Neither  is  it  incumbent  on  the  negative  to  ad- 
vance a  substitute  measure.  But  should  they  do 
so,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  affirmative  to  de- 
fend the  tax  against  all  proposed  remedies  that 
the  negative  may  mention,  but  only  against  the 
substitute  or  substitutes  that  the  negative  really 
undertakes  to  prove. 

4.  Statement  of  admitted  matter. — Amateurs  in 
debate  often  need  to  learn  that  it  is  neither  neces- 
sary nor  desirable  to  controvert  every  point  raised 
by  their  opponents,  to  dissipate  their  energies  in 
opposing  what  it  would  only  strengthen  their  case 
to  admit.  The  skilful  debater  learns  to  yield 
cheerfully  any  point  raised  that  is  not  essential  to 
the  proof  of  the  main  point  or  points  in  the  dis- 
cussion. By  "admitted  matter"  is  meant  those 
points  on  which  both  sides  agree — the  points  that 
are  conceded  or  granted.  In  this  step  in  analysis 
the  debater  asks  himself  such  questions  as:  What 
matters  likely  to  be  connected  with  this  question 
can  I  safely  concede  without  affecting  my  position? 
and  what  matters  is  it  reasonable  to  assume  that 
my  opponents  will  yield?  For  example,  take  the 
question,  "Resolved,  that  the  deportation  of  all 
negroes  in  this  country  to  one  of  our  island  pos- 
sessions offers  the  best  solution  of  the  race  problem." 
The  admitted  matter  in  this  question  might  be 
stated  as  follows:  It  is  granted  that  the  presence 
of  the  negroes  in  America  presents  a  problem  that 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    QUESTION    33 

as  yet  remains  unsolved;  that  both  sides  admit  the 
existence  of  the  problem  and  the  need  of  some 
solution;  that  in  the  discussion  of  the  particular 
solution  proposed,  the  deportation  would  be  ef- 
fected, so  far  as  possible,  in  accordance  with  the 
demands  of  justice  and  humanity.  If  this  much, 
say,  be  granted  by  both  sides,  the  essential  points 
of  difference,  the  points  on  which  there  is  a  real 
clash  of  opinion,  are  left  for  the  undivided  atten- 
tion which  they  deserve. 

5.  Contentions  of  both  sides,  or  dash  of  opinion. — 
After  defining  the  question,  excluding  irrelevant 
matters,  and  stating  admitted  matters,  the  next 
step  in  analysis  is  to  enumerate,  briefly  but  com- 
pletely, the  arguments  on  the  affirmative  side  and 
those  on  the  negative  side.  Such  an  exposition 
will  show  the  clash  of  opinion  and  reveal  the  issues 
in  the  debate.  ''There  is  no  other  way  of  ex- 
pounding a  proposition,  and  until  a  proposition  is 
expounded  it  cannot  be  proved."1  "The  essence 
of  the  dialectic  method  is  to  place  side  by  side  with 
every  doctrine  and  its  reasons,  all  opposing  doc- 
trines and  their  reasons,  allowing  these  to  be 
stated  in  full  by  the  persons  holding  them.  No 
doctrine  is  to  be  held  as  expounded,  far  less  proved, 
unless  it  stands  in  parallel  array  to  every  other 
counter  theory,  with  all  that  can  be  said  for 
each."2 

Thus,  the  opinions  held  on  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion, "Should  immigrants  to  the  United  States  be 

1  Foster,  Argumentation  and  Debating,  p.  43. 

2  Bain,  Essay  on  Early  Philosophy. 


34 


HOW    TO    DEBATE 


required  to  read  in  some  language,"  may  be  stated 
as  follows: 


AFFIRMATIVE 

I.  A    reading   test    for    immi- 
grants is,  a  priori,  a  reasonable 
requirement,  for, 

A.  This  is  essential  for  citi- 
zenship. 

II.  The    large    number    (45%) 
of    illiterate    immigrants    from 
southern   Europe    produces   an 
excess  of  unskilled  laborers,  and 
thus  lowers  the  standard  of  liv- 
ing   for    the    native    American 
laborer,  for, 

A.  Illiteracy  reduces  a  labor- 
er's bargaining  power. 

B.  The  report  of  the  U.  S. 
Immigration    Commission   sus- 
tains this  contention. 

III.  The    illiterate    immigrants 
are  a  menace  to  our  government, 
for, 

A.  They  remain  ignorant  of 
our  institutions. 

B.  They     gravitate     to     our 
large  cities,  and  to  the  slum  dis- 
tricts of  these  cities. 


IV.  The  present  large  influx 
of  illiterate  foreigners  seriously 
threatens  a  general  race  deterio- 
ration in  America,  for, 

A.  The  infusion  of  such  peo- 
ple   into    our    social    body    "is 
watering  the  nation's  life  blood." 

B.  History  and  biology  prove 
that   the   mingling   of   superior 
and   inferior   races   produces  a 
lower  average  man-type. 


NEGATIVE 

I.  A    reading    test    for    immi- 
grants cannot  be  justified,  for, 

A.  Reading  is  no  test  of 
character  or  of  other  qualities 
of  citizenship. 

II.  There  is  no  excess  of  un- 
skilled laborers  in  the  U.   S., 
the   evil   complained   of   being 
due  to  unequal  distribution,  for, 

A.  We   need   more   unskilled 
laborers    in    industry    and    for 
our  undeveloped  resources. 

B.  The  report  of  the  U.  S. 
Immigration      Commission      is 
based    on    conditions    only    in 
large  industrial  centers. 

III.  Illiteracy     is     not     neces- 
sarily a  menace  to  citizenship, 
for, 

A.  Most  of  the  immigrants' 
illiteracy    is    caused    by    lack 
of  opportunity  in  their  native 
country,  and, 

B.  Among    the    children    of 
immigrants     illiteracy     largely 
disappears* 

IV.  The  continual  infusion  of 
new  blood  is  desirable  for  the 
composite  character  of  the  typ- 
ical American,  for, 

A.  With  proper  methods  of 
distribution,   we  shall  be  able 
to  assimilate  the  present  immi- 
grants. 

B.  A  large  percentage  of  our 
best  citizens  would  have  been 
excluded  by  a  reading  test. 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    QUESTION    35 

It  will  readily  be  seen  how  the  listing  of  the  prin- 
cipal contentions  on  both  sides  of  a  question  will 
lead  to  a  determination  of  the  main  issues,  which  is 
the  next  step  in  analysis.  Thus,  from  the  clash  of 
opinion  shown  in  the  parallel  contentions  as  above 
stated  we  may  deduce  the  following  four  issues: 

I.  Is  a  reading  test  for  immigrants  inherently 
sound? 

II.  Is  it  demanded  for  economic  reasons? 

III.  Is  it  demanded  for  political  reasons? 

IV.  Is  it  demanded  for  social  reasons? 

6.  The  main  issues. — We  now  come  to  the  last 
step  in  analysis,  the  determination  of  the  main 
issues  in  the  question  for  debate.  As  we  have 
just  seen,  the  preceding  steps  in  analysis  lead  to 
this  final  step  as  a  climax,  and  by  natural  sequence. 
What  is  meant  by  the  main  issues?,  They  are  the 
issues  in  which  the  debate  centers,  and  about  which 
the  whole  discussion  revolves;  the  matters  that 
must  chiefly  be  proved  in  order  to  prove  your  case. 
Rarely  is  a  question  for  debate  so  stated  that  the 
evidence  can  be  applied  directly  to  the  whole  case. 
By  analysis  you  must  usually  work  out  a  sub- 
division of  two,  three,  or  four  subpropositions  (the 
number,  of  course,  depending  upon  the  nature  of 
the  question)  that  cover  the  whole  field  of  the 
argument,  and  which,  if  proved,  will  establish  the 
main  proposition  for  debate.  For  example,  take 
the  question,  ''The  standing  army  of  the  United 
States  should  be  increased."  In  support  of  this 
proposition  you  might  say  that  we  need  more  regu- 
lar soldiers  to  quell  disorder  during  strikes  and 


36  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

riots,  to  fight  Indians,  to  impress  other  nations  as 
to  our  military  strength,  to  protect  national  reser- 
vations, to  send  to  Cuba,  Porto  Rico,  and  the 
Philippines,  to  guard  our  borders,  to  defend  us 
against  an  attack  by  another  country,  etc.  But  so 
far  the  argument  is  all  a  jumble.  You  must  get 
some  logical  grouping  of  these  points.  For  one 
way  of  determining  the  issues  in  this  question  it 
might  be  asked,  What  is  the  need  of  any  standing 
army  at  all  in  the  United  States?  We  need  an 
increase  in  our  standing  army  (i)  for  effective  police 
service  in  times  of  peace,  and  (2)  for  national  de- 
fense in  times  of  war.  The  subpropositions,  then, 
that  the  affirmative  would  undertake  to  maintain 
in  order  to  prove  the  main  proposition  would  be: 
(i)  Our  standing  army  should  be  increased  to 
insure  effective  police  service,  and  (2)  It  should 
be  increased  to  insure  adequate  preparation  for 
national  defense. 

Masters  in  debate  have  always  possessed  a  talent 
for  separating  the  kernel  of  a  proposition  from  the 
chaff;  the  power  of  detecting,  in  the  midst  of  a 
mass  of  confusing  details,  the  vital  point  or  points 
in  the  discussion.  Lincoln,  for  example,  was  noted 
for  his  power  in  analysis.  It  has  been  said  of  him 
that  his  mind  "ran  back  behind  facts,  principles, 
and  all  things,  to  their  origin  and  first  cause — to 
that  point  where  forces  act  at  once  as  effect  and 
cause.  Before  he  could  form  an  idea  of  anything, 
before  he  would  express  his  opinion  on  a  subject, 
he  must  know  its  origin  and  history  in  substance 
and  quality,  in  magnitude  and  gravity.  He  must 


ANALYSIS   OF    THE   QUESTION    37 

know  it  inside  and  outside,  upside  and  downside. 
Thus  everything  had  to  run  through  the  crucible 
and  be  tested  by  the  fires  of  his  analytic  mind ;  and 
when  at  last  he  did  speak,  his  utterances  rang  out 
with  the  clear  and  keen  ring  of  gold  upon  the 
counters  of  the  understanding."  In  the  introduc- 
tion of  his  noteworthy  address  at  Cooper  Institute, 
New  York,  February  27,  1860,  this  analytic  quality 
is  forcibly  shown.  Taking  as  his  "text"  a  quota- 
tion from  Senator  Douglas,  Lincoln  defines  the 
terms,  states  the  common  ground,  and  then  reaches 
the  main  issue,  as  follows: 

In  his  speech  last  autumn,  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  as  re- 
ported in  the  New  York  Times,  Senator  Douglas  said: 
"Our  fathers,  when  they  framed  the  government  under 
which  we  live,  understood  this  question  just  as  well, 
and  even  better,  than  we  do  now." 

I  fully  indorse  this,  and  I  adopt  it  as  a  text  for  this 
discourse.  I  so  adopt  it  because  it  furnishes  a  precise 
and  agreed  starting-point  for  a  discussion  between  Re- 
publicans and  that  wing  of  the  Democracy  headed  by 
Senator  Douglas.  It  simply  leaves  the  inquiry:  What 
was  the  understanding  those  fathers  had  of  the  ques- 
tion mentioned? 

What  is  the  frame  of  government  under  which  we 
live?  The  answer  must  be,  "The  Constitution  of  the 
United  States."  .  .  .  Who  were  our  fathers  that  framed 
the  Constitution  ?  I  suppose  the  thirty-nine  who  signed 
the  original  instrument  may  be  fairly  called  our  fathers 
who  framed  that  part  of  our  present  government.  .  .  . 
What  is  the  question  which,  according  to  the  text,  those 
fathers  understood  "just  as  well,  and  even  better,  than 
we  do  now"?  It  is  this:  Does  the  proper  division  of 
4 


38  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

local  from  Federal  authority,  or  anything  in  the  Consti- 
tution, forbid  our  Federal  Government  to  control  slavery 
in  our  Federal  territories?  Upon  this,  Senator  Douglas 
holds  the  affirmative,  and  the  Republicans  the  negative. 
This  affirmation  and  denial  form  an  issue;  and  this 
issue — this  question — is  precisely  what  the  text  declares 
our  fathers  understood  "better  than  we."1 

Webster,  in  his  famous  debate  with  Hayne,  finds 
the  main  issue  as  follows: 

The  inherent  right  in  the  people  to  reform  their 
government  I  do  not  deny ;  and  they  have  another  right, 
and  that  is,  to  resist  unconstitutional  laws  without  over- 
turning the  government.  It  is  no  doctrine  of  mine  that 
unconstitutional  laws  bind  the  people.  The  great  ques- 
tion is,  Whose  prerogative  is  it  to  decide  on  the  consti- 
tutionality or  unconstitutionality  of  the  laws?  On  that 
the  main  debate  hinges. 

So  Burke,  in  his  speech  on  "Conciliation  with  the 
American  Colonies "  thus  states  the  two  main 
issues : 

The  capital  leading  questions  on  which  you  must  this 
day  decide  are  these  two:  First,  whether  you  ought  to 
concede;  and,  secondly,  what  your  concession  ought 
to  be. 

,  One  further  example,  with  a  different  method 
of  approach.2  Take  the  question,  "Resolved,  that 
three-fourths  of  a  jury  should  be  competent  to 
render  a  verdict  in  criminal  cases."  On  analysis 
it  will  appear  that  both  sides  admit  that  absolute 

1  Perry,  Little  Masterpieces,  pp.  37-39. 

8  Adapted  from  Alden's  Art  of  Debate,  p.  35. 


ANALYSIS   OF   THE   QUESTION    39 

justice  cannot  always  be  expected  in  jury  trials. 
The  question,  therefore,  is:  How  secure  the  most 
perfect  justice  consistent  with  a  uniform  system? 
There  are  two  sorts  of  interest  involved:  (i) 
the  interest  of  the  accused,  that  he  shall  not  be 
unjustly  convicted  (the  present  status);  (2)  the 
interest  of  the  people  as  a  whole,  that  the  guilty 
shall  not  escape  punishment.  The  main  issue, 
therefore,  might  be  thus  stated :  Will  the  proposed 
change  increase  the  probability  of  public  justice 
without  lessening  the  probability  of  justice  to  the 
accused? 

Having  gone  thus  far  in  the  process  of  analysis, 
the  student  will  fully  realize  that  a  thorough  knowl- 
edge of  the  question  is  absolutely  essential.  Not 
only  a  knowledge  of  the  side  he  desires  to  main- 
tain, but  the  side  of  the  opposition  as  well;  for 
any  one  "who  knows  only  one  side  of  a  question 
knows  little  of  that."  As  a  general  of  an  army, 
he  must  not  only  know  the  strength  and  weakness 
of  his  own  army,  but  the  strength  and  weakness 
of  the  enemy. 

When  the  important  issues  and  the  point  or 
points  on  which  the  question  hinges  have  been 
determined,  it  will  be  discovered  that  there  is 
what  is  called  a  "clash  of  opinion."  In  other 
words,  the  main  contention  of  the  affirmative  and 
the  main  contention  of  the  negative  will  directly 
contradict  each  other.  This  head-on  collision  is 
always  desirable  in  a  formal  debate,  though  not 
always  existent.  In  the  less  formal  discussions  of 


40  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

every-day  life,  also,  the  clash  of  opinion  is  often 
not  readily  apparent,  but  the  skilful  debater  will 
always  analyze  the  question  to  discover  the  vital 
issue  or  issues  upon  which  the  discussion  turns. 

It  is  impossible  to  formulate  a  definite  plan  to 
determine  the  issues  that  will  be  adequate  for  every 
subject  for  debate,  but  the  following  scheme  will 
at  least  afford  a  check  for  beginners: 

In  most  questions  of  reform  there  is  an  underlying 
evil.  It  is  quite  important  that  this  evil  be  pointed 
out.  Man  will  not  change  his  action  or  his  attitude 
toward  the  fundamental  problems  of  economics, 
government,  religion,  or  sociology  until  it  has  been 
proved  to  his  satisfaction  that  there  is  a  need  for 
this  change.  Human  nature  is  very  conservative 
when  basic  principles  of  life  are  involved.  Hence, 
the  first  important  issue  to  prove  is  that  there  are 
evils  in  the  present  system  great  enough  to  warrant 
a  change.  The  next  logical  step  would  be  to  sug- 
gest an  adequate  remedy  for  this  evil — a  plan  of 
action.  Mankind  will  not  abandon  a  plan,  faulty 
as  it  may  be,  until  it  sees  a  better  one.  Having 
suggested  a  cure  for  the  evil,  there  still  remains 
another  point,  and  that  is,  to  prove  the  proposed 
plan  practical — that  it  will  work,  and  also  that  it 
will  work  better  than  any  other  proposed  remedy. 
The  negative  will,  of  course,  maintain  the  opposite. 
These  issues  will  have  many  subdivisions,  but  the 
"clash  of  opinion"  will  not  be  as  direct  in  the  sub- 
issues  as  they  are  in  the  main  issues. 

By  way  of  summary.  The  affirmative  may 
prove : 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    QUESTION    41 

1.  Cause  for  action,  or  evils  in  the  present  sys- 
tem, or  necessity  for  change. 

2.  Method  of  action    or  remedy  for   evils,  or 
feasibility  of  plan. 

3.  Practicability  of  method,  and  best  plan. 
The  negative  may  prove: 

1.  No  just  cause  for  action,  or  evils  do  not  exist, 
or  no  immediate  need  for  proposed  changes. 

2.  Method  not  adequate,  or  evils  incurable,  or 
plan  not  feasible. 

3.  Method  impracticable,  or  better  plan. 

EXAMPLE 

Resolved,  that  the  United  States  should  establish 
a  protectorate  over  Mexico. 

The  issues  might  be  arranged  in  the  following 
manner : 

AFFIRMATIVE  NEGATIVE 

A.  Present  conditions  in  Mexico     A.  Conditions    in    Mexico    are 
are  unsatisfactory,  for,  not  bad  enough  to  warrant  in- 

1.  Foreign    capital    and    for-     tervention,  for, 

eign  citizens  are  unprotected.  i.  Very     little     capital     and 

2.  Mexico  is  unable  to  estab-     very  few  foreign  citizens  have 
lish  a  stable  government.  been  molested. 

2.  Only  about  one  in  three 
hundred  are  engaged  in  warfare. 

B.  Protectorate  the  best  rem-     B.  Protectorate   would  be  un- 
edy,  for,  desirable,  for, 

1.  Foreign  citizens  and  prop-  I.  It   could    be    established 
erty  would  be  protected.  only  at  a   tremendous   expense 

2.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  ob-  and  the  sacrifice  of  many  lives, 
ligates  the  U.  S.  to  intervene.  2.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  does 

not  require  the  U.  S.  to  inter- 
vene. 


42  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

C.  The  plan  is  practicable,  for,     C.  It  is  impracticable,  for, 

1.  It  has  been  successful  in         i.  There  is  little  analogy  be- 
Cuba.  tween  Cuba  and  Mexico. 

2.  England  and  other  nations         2.  Annexation  is  the  sequel 
have  successful  protectorates.        of  protectorates:  witness  Eng- 
land.    The  U.  S.  does  not  de- 
sire to  annex  Mexico. 

The  following  tests  should  be  applied  to  the 
issues  of  every  question  for  debate: 

1.  Does  each  issue  include  only  disputed  matter? 

2.  Does  each  issue  bear  directly  on  the  main 
proposition  ? 

3.  Do  the  issues  collectively  embrace  all  phases 
of  the  propositions? 

EXERCISES 

1.  Assign  members  of  the  class  questions  of  current  discus- 
sion, and  let  each  student  bring  in  at  the  next  meeting  a  written 
statement  of  (a)  why  the  subject  is  one  of  public  discussion, 
(6)  the  state  of  the  discussion  at  the  present  time,  and  (c)  the 
opinions  held  by  each  side. 

2.  Point  out  the  merits  or  demerits  of  the  following  defini- 
tions: 

(a)  A  hammer  is  something  to  hammer  with. 

(b)  A  hand  is  a  part  of  the  body. 

(c)  To  caper  is  to  dance  like  a  goat. 

(d)  Idiot  (Gr.  a  private  person).    A  person  not  holding 
a  public  office. 

(e)  Fast.    Something  immovable;    rapid  in  motion. 
(/)    Jesus's  definition  of  "neighbor"  as  given  in  Luke  x, 

30-36. 

(g)  Life  is  the  definite  combination  of  heterogeneous 
changes,  both  simultaneous  and  successive  in  cor- 
respondence with  eternal  coexistences  and  sequences. 

(h)  The  proposition  is  peace.  Not  peace  .through  the 
medium  of  war;  not  peace  to  be  'hunted  through  the 


ANALYSIS   OF   THE   QUESTION    43 

labyrinth  of  intricate  and  endless  negotiations;  not 
peace  to  arise  out  of  universal  discord  fomented, 
from  principle,  in  all  parts  of  the  empire;  not  peace 
to  depend  on  the  juridical  determination  of  perplex- 
ing questions,  or  the  precise  marking  the  shadowy 
boundaries  of  a  complex  government. 
(i)  What  is  a  friend?  I  will  tell  you.  It  is  a  person  with 
whom  you  dare  to  be  yourself.  Your  soul  can  go 
naked  with  him.  He  seems  to  ask  of  you  to  put  on 
nothing,  only  to  be  what  you  are.  He  does  not 
want  you  to  be  better  or  worse.  When  you  are  with 
him  you  feel  as  a  prisoner  feels  who  has  been  de- 
clared innocent.  You  do  not  have  to  be  on  your 
guard.  You  can  say  what  you  think,  express  what 
you  feel.  He  is  shocked  at  nothing,  offended  at 
nothing,  so  long  as  it  is  genuinely  you.  He  under- 
stands those  contradictions  in  your  nature  that  lead 
others  to  misjudge  you.  With  him  you  breathe 
freely.  You  can  take  off  your  coat  and  loosen  your 
collar.  You  can  avow  your  little  vanities  and  envies 
and  hates  and  vicious  sparks,  your  meanness  and 
absurdities,  and  in  opening  them  up  to  him  they  are 
lost,  dissolved  in  the  white  ocean  of  his  loyalty.  He 
understands.  You  do  not  have  to  be  careful.  You 
can  "abuse,  neglect  him,  berate  him.  Best  of  all  you 
can  keep  still  with  him.  It  makes  no  matter.  He 
likes  you.  He  is  like  fire,  that  purifies  all  you  do. 
He  is  like  water,  that  cleanses  all  you  say.  He  is 
like  wine,  that  warms  you  to  the  bone.  He  under- 
stands, he  understands,  he  understands.  You  can 
weep  with  him,  laugh  with  him,  sin  with  him,  pray 
with  him.  Through  and  underneath  it  all  he  sees, 
knows,  and  loves  you.  A  friend,  I  repeat,  is  the  one 
with  whom  you  dare  to  be  yourself. — Dr.  Frank  Crane. 
3.  Define  the  following  terms  by  one  or  more  of  the  various 
methods  suggested  in  the  previous  chapter: 
Monroe  doctrine  Annexation 

Compulsory  arbitration       Liberal  construction 


44  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

Presumption  Government  by  injunction 

Dispensary  system  City  manager  plan 

Wage  schedule  Des  Moines  plan 

Capital  punishment  Government  by  commission 

Prohibition  party  Autonomy 

Socialism  Industrial  education 

Open  shop  Mass  play 

Equal  suffrage  The  mutation  theory 

Protectorate  Professional  coach 

Yellow  peril  Classical  education 

4.  Point  out  how  much  definition  is  necessary  in  the  follow- 
ing questions: 

(a)  Association  football  is  preferable  to  the  Rugby  game. 

(b)  Trusts  should  be  suppressed. 

(c)  American  colleges  and  universities  should  adopt  the 
elective  system. 

(d)  Oral  English  should  be  a  required  study  in  all  high 
schools. 

5.  Determine  the  irrelevant  matter  in  the  following: 

(a)  Eight  hours  should  be  the  standard  of  a  day's  work. 

(b)  The  United  States  should  have  an  inheritance  tax. 

(c)  Women  should  be  given  the  ballot  on  equal  terms 
with  men. 

6.  State  the  admitted  matter  in  the  following: 

(a)  The  honor  system  should  be  employed  in  the  exami- 
nation of  high  schools  and  colleges. 

(b)  Negroes  should  neither  be  enlisted  nor  commissioned 
in  the  United  States  regular  army. 

(c)  Any  further  centralization  of  power  in  the  Federal 
Government  should  be  opposed  by  all  citizens. 

7.  On  the  basis  of  the  interests  involved,  determine  the  main 
issues  in: 

(a)  Fraternities  should  not  be  allowed  in  this  institution. 

(b)  The  faculty  of  this  institution  should  have  the  right 
of  censorship  of  student  publications. 

(c)  The  publication  of  cartoons  of  public  men  should 
not  be  permitted. 

8.  State  the  clash  of  opinion  on  the  following  questions  by 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    QUESTION    45 

enumerating  the  contentions  on  both  the  affirmative  and  the 
negative  sides: 

(a)   Women  should  be  granted  the  suffrage  on  equal 

terms  with  men. 

(ft)    Prohibition  is  the  best  solution  of  the  liquor  problem. 
(c)   Excepting   English,  the  elective  system  of  studies 

should  be  adopted  in  high  schools. 

9.  Let  each  member  of  the  class  analyze  an  assigned  ques- 
tion for  debate  (see  Appendix),  the  results  to  be  given  in 
either  oral  or  written  reports  at  the  next  exercise. 


Ill 

PROOF 

HAVING  analyzed  the  question  and  so  got 
an  idea  of  the  work  to  be  done,  the  debater 
is  now  ready  to  proceed  to  his  proof,  or  argument 
proper.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  deal 
with  proof  only  in  its  broad  outlines;  more  detailed 
features  of  the  same  general  subject  will  be  con- 
sidered in  succeeding  chapters. 

What  is  proof? — Proof  has  been  defined  as  "suf- 
ficient reason  for  asserting  a  proposition  as  true." 
Webster  defines  it  as  "any  effort,  process,  or  opera- 
tion designed  to  discover  a  fact  or  truth."  Thus 
we  see  that  proof  is  a  process — an  operation  which 
uses  the  known  to  establish  the  unknown.  It  is 
a  reaching  out  after  and  securing  knowledge  of 
which  we  are  ignorant  or  uncertain;  and  as  we 
reason  from  the  known  to  the  unknown,  we  use 
as  a  basis  for  proof  those  facts  and  principles  which 
we  already  know.  A  proposition  may  be  said  to 
be  proved  when  the  mind  that  we  wish  to  convince 
is  satisfied  that  the  proposition  is  true. 

Proof  involves  two  elements — Evidence  and 
Argument.  These  will  be  discussed  in  the  follow- 
ing two  chapters. 


PROOF  47 

Proof  vs.  Assertion. — The  amateur  debater  must 
first  of  all  learn  that  asserting  is  not  debating.  Real 
debating  requires  that  every  assertion  material  to 
a  question  must  be  supported  by  proof.  To  reason 
is  to  state  relevant  facts  or  experiences,  and  to 
draw  inferences  from  these  facts  and  experiences, 
in  support  of  a  proposition.  The  statement  of  a 
matter  as  a  fact,  or  of  a  belief  as  a  truth,  without 
stating  the  reasons  on  which  the  conclusion  is 
based,  is  mere  assertiveness.  Not  amateur  de- 
baters alone  need  to  be  on  their  guard  against  as- 
sertiveness— the  fault  is  also  illustrated,  as  has 
previously  been  suggested,  in  the  dogmatism  of 
the  preacher  or  teacher,  and  generally  in  the 
bigotry  of  persons  in  all  walks  of  life  when  called 
upon  to  present  some  evidence  of  the  truth  of  their 
assertions.  If  a  man  says  that  he  knows  a  thing 
or  believes  a  thing,  he  must  show  how  he  knows 
it  or  why  he  believes  it.  A  minister  once  came 
to  Jeremiah  Mason,  the  famous  trial  lawyer,  and 
said:  "Mr.  Mason,  I  have  seen  an  angel  from 
heaven  who  told  me  that  your  client  was  innocent." 
"Yes,"  replied  Mason,  "and  did  he  tell  you  how 
to  prove  it?" 

"How  can  I  prove  it?"  is  the  constantly  recurring 
question  in  debate.  As  a  preliminary  to  the  search 
for  proof  the  student  should  first  of  all  subject 
himself  to  a  severe  self-scrutiny  and  note  what 
clearly  defined  opinions  he  already  has  on  the  sub- 
ject under  discussion;  what  opinions  are  based 
upon  personal  knowledge,  or  upon  experience  or 
evidence  of  some  sort  that  he  can  lay  his  hands  on ; 


48  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

and  what  opinions  rest  on  vague  impressions,  early 
teaching,  and  prejudice,  or  upon  the  desire  that 
this  or  that  side  of  the  question  may  be  true. 
By  such  a  preliminary  examination  of  the  content 
of  his  own  mind  he  will  clear  the  approach  to  the 
proof  of  a  great  deal  of  rubbish,  and  will  clear  his 
mind  for  action.  This  process  of  excluding  im- 
pressions and  prejudices,  as  a  question  is  taken  up 
for  debate,  is  not  always  easy.  "The  best  minds," 
says  Victor  Hugo,  in  his  Les  Miser  ables,  "have 
their  fetishes,  and  at  times  feel  vaguely  wounded 
by  any  respect  on  the  part  of  logic."  "It  is  no 
proof  of  a  man's  understanding,"  says  Emerson, 
"to  be  able  to  confirm  whatever  he  pleases."  It 
is  not  only  no  proof  of  his  understanding,  it  is  no 
compliment  to  his  intelligence. 

Assumption. — An  exception  to  the  rule  that 
in  argument  every  material  assertion  must  be  sup- 
ported by  proof  is  found  in  the  legitimate  use  of 
assumptions.  An  assumption  is  the  provisional  or 
absolute  acceptance  of  a  certain  truth  without  ref- 
erence to  proof — taking  a  thing  for  granted.  The 
provisional  acceptance  of  an  alleged  truth  is  a 
method  of  reasoning  largely  used  in  scientific  in- 
vestigation. The  method  consists  of  either  of  two 
processes,  known  as  deduction  and  induction.  In 
deduction  a  general  law  or  hypothesis  is  first  as- 
sumed, and  then  all  instances  or  phenomena  are 
brought  within  this  general  law;  and  the  inverse 
method,  or  induction,  which  proceeds  from  par- 
ticulars to  the  general  law,  assumes  that  all  in- 
stances are  like  those  examined.  In  mathematics 


PROOF  49 

an  assumption  is  called  an  axiom;  in  practical  af- 
fairs, a  maxim.  The  ordinary  proverb  is  simply 
the  expression  of  the  common  experience  or  com- 
mon knowledge  of  mankind.  In  one  of  his  ad- 
dresses, David  Starr  Jordan  says:  "We  know 
that  if  the  youth  fall  not  the  man  will  stand.  I 
shall  not  argue  this  question.  I  assume  it  as  a 
fact  of  experience,  and  it  is  this  fact  which  gives 
our  public  school  system  the  right  to  exist."1  In 
this  instance  a  common  proverb,  "As  the  twig  is 
bent  the  tree  is  inclined, "  is  used  as  the  basis  for 
the  support  of  our  system  of  public  schools.  And, 
generally,  in  every-day  discussions  assumptions 
are  the  ultimate  basis  of  much  reasoning.  The 
point  to  be  guarded  against  is  that  nothing  be  as- 
sumed unless  it  is  generally  accepted  as  true.  That 
is,  whenever  an  assumption  has  an  argumentative 
force,  it  must  itself  rest  on  the  assumption  of  gen- 
eral acceptance  without  the  necessity  for  proof. 
The  force  of  the  argument  from  authority  (later 
considered)  rests  on  the  assumption  that  the  au- 
thority quoted  will  be  accepted  as  authoritative. 

Assumptions,  then,  are  widely  serviceable  as  a 
basis  for  much  argument.  It  will  be  seen,  how- 
ever, that  they  readily  shade  off  into  presumptions. 
An  assumption  may  vary  in  force  from  the  cer- 
tainty of  a  self-evident  proposition  to  a  mere 
guess.  And  the  test  of  its  argumentative  force, 
it  should  be  remembered,  is  its  effect  on  the  mind 
of  a  hearer.  The  moment  that  the  truth  of  an 

1  Care  and  Culture  of  Men,  p.  84. 


50  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

assumption  is  questioned,  proof  to  support  it  be- 
comes necessary. 

Varying  degrees  of  possible  proof. — In  com- 
mon usage  proof  means  the  establishment  of  a 
greater  or  less  probability  as  to  the  truth  of  a  given 
proposition.  When  we  argue  current  political  or 
economic  questions,  our  proof  must  always  fall 
short  of  mathematical  demonstration;  the  very 
fact  that  such  questions  are  in  dispute  implies  that 
they  cannot  be  settled  by  syllogisms.  Outside  of 
mathematics  and  logic,  then,  and  from  the  view- 
point of  ordinary  debate,  we  may  properly  speak 
of  degrees  of  proof.  The  degree  of  conclusiveness 
that  may  be  reached  in  an  argument  will  depend 
upon  the  nature  of  the  question.  Proof  or  dis- 
proof may  vary  from  practically  absolute  conclu- 
siveness to  a  mere  presumption  of  truth. 

As  determining  the  degree  of  possible  proof, 
two  classes  of  questions  for  debate  may  be  con- 
sidered. These  are:  (i)  Questions  of  Fact,  wherein 
the  argument  mainly  rests  on  past  experiences  or 
present  conditions;  and  (2)  Questions  of  Policy, 
wherein  the  truth  of  the  proposition  must  be  tested, 
at  least  in  part,  by  future  experiences. 

i.  "A  fact  is  a  past  happening  or  present  con- 
dition." In  a  question  of  fact,  then,  something  has 
happened  or  exists;  the  process  of  proof  consists 
in  showing  what  that  something  is.  Such  ques- 
tions are  therefore  capable  of  a  greater  degree  of 
approximation  to  absolute  conclusiveness  of  proof 
than  is  possible  in  questions  of  policy.  Now,  in 
questions  of  fact  three  classes  of  facts  are  to  be 


PROOF  51 

dealt  with:  First,  those  facts  that  are  admitted  or 
conclusively  proved;  second,  the  facts  that  are  in 
doubt,  which  must  be  determined  from  the  evi- 
dence to  be  presented;  and,  third,  the  facts  that 
are  to  be  inferred  from  the  facts  that  are  admitted 
or  proved.  These  three  classes  of  facts  represent 
the  steps  in  the  proof  in  an  ordinary  trial  at  law. 
First,  there  is  the  statement  of  the  facts  in  the  case 
which  both  sides  admit — including  those  matters 
of  which  the  court  will  take  "judicial  notice";  sec- 
ondly, the  proof  of  facts  in  issue;  and,  thirdly,  the 
conclusions  of  fact  drawn  by  the  verdict  of  the  jury, 
which  records  those  facts  proved  by  either  "a  fair 
preponderance  of  evidence"  or  "beyond  a  reason- 
able doubt,"  as  the  case  may  be.  And  so  in  de- 
bate generally:  First,  certain  facts  are  admitted 
by  both  sides  at  the  outset;  second,  certain  facts 
are  to  be  proved — the  issues  in  the  debate;  and 
third,  certain  facts  or  conclusions  are  to  be  inferred 
from  the  proof  presented. 

2.  In  questions  of  policy  the  proof  relates  not 
to  what  has  happened,  but  to  what  should  hap- 
pen. But  while  the  conclusion  to  be  reached  looks 
toward  the  future,  the  argument  must  almost  al- 
ways be  grounded  on  facts.  Take,  for  example, 
the  question  of  government  ownership  of  railroads 
in  the  United  States.  The  usual  line  of  proof 
would  be :  (i)  The  existing  evils  in  railway  manage- 
ment demand  correction;  (2)  government  owner- 
ship has  proved  beneficial  in  other  countries;  and 
(3)  it  would  prove  beneficial  in  this  country.  Or 
again,  questions  of  policy  can  usually  be  reduced 


52  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

to  these  two  issues:  (i)  Would  the  adoption  of  the 
plan  proposed  be  to  our  interest?  (2)  Would  it  be 
in  accord  with  principle?  These  are  the  two  main 
issues  in  the  argument  of  such  questions,  for  ex- 
ample, as  the  permanent  retention  of  the  Philip- 
pine Islands  or  the  annexation  of  Cuba — (i)  Will 
it  pay?  and  (2)  is  it  right?  And  if  it  can  be 
shown  that  interest  and  principle  coincide,  a  strong 
argument  results. 

But  in  all  questions  of  policy,  it  will  be  readily 
seen,  absolute  proof  or  disproof  is  impossible. 
And  the  test  is,  Has  the  advocate  of  this  policy 
made  out  such  a  case  that  a  reasonable  man  should 
act  on  it?  The  test  proceeds  on  the  principle  that 
that  proof  which  convinces  an  honest  seeker  of  the 
truth  should  convince  an  honest  hearer.  No  re- 
form— political,  social,  humanitarian,  or  religious — 
can  be  proposed  against  which  valid  objections  can- 
not be  urged.  The  test  is,  do  such  objections  out- 
weigh the  proved  advantages? 

The  burden  of  proof.  —  By  this  is  meant,  "the 
obligation  resting  upon  one  or  the  other  of  the 
parties  to  a  controversy  to  establish  by  proofs  a 
given  proposition  before  being  entitled  to  receive 
an  answer  from  the  other  side."  To  put  it  another 
way,  the  burden  of  proof  is  that  obligation  resting 
upon  the  side  that  would  be  assumed  to  be  defeated 
if  no  progress  were  made  in  the  discussion. 

In  the  evolution  of  the  law,  a  large  number  of 
rules  have  been  established  for  governing  the  bur- 
den of  proof,  with  many  of  which  even  the  lay- 
man is  familiar.  Thayer's  Preliminary  Treatise 


PROOF  53 

on  Evidence  reduces  the  doctrine  of  legal  presump- 
tions to  the  following  four  maxims: 

(i)  No  one  shall,  in  the  first  instance,  be  called  on  to 
prove  a  negative,  or  be  put  on  his  defense,  without  suffi- 
cient evidence  against  him  having  been  offered,  which, 
if  not  contradicted  or  explained,  would  be  conclusive. 
(2)  The  affirmative  of  the  issue  must  be  proved;  other- 
wise men  might  be  called  upon  by  a  stranger  to  prove 
the  title  to  their  property,  which  they  might  often  be 
unable  to  do,  though  the  title  was  in  fact  good.  (3) 
Possession  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  property.  .  .  . 
(4)  Whatever  anything  appears  or  professes  to  be  is 
considered  to  be  the  fact,  until  the  contrary  is  proved. 

In  conformity  to  these  legal  rules,  the  side  which 
has  the  affirmative  of  the  issue  in  a  debate  is  said 
to  have  the  burden  of  proof.  That  is,  the  burden 
of  proof  is  upon  him  who  would  change  a  present 
custom,  who  attacks  one's  character  or  motives, 
who  proposes  a  change  in  the  established  order  of 
things,  who  champions  a  new  plan  or  policy,  who 
argues  counter  to  the  prevalent  practice,  belief,  or 
opinion.  Corresponding  to  Thayer's  fourth  maxim, 
as  given  above,  we  might  say  that  the  general  pre- 
sumption is  that  "whatever  is,  is  right" — until  it 
is  proved  wrong.  And  as  in  law,  there  are  in  de- 
bating generally  various  degrees  of  presumption, 
depending  upon  the  nature  of  the  proposition,  and 
the  time  when,  and  locality  where,  it  is  proposed. 
For  example,  the  presumption  in  the  United  States 
has  always  been  against  a  monarchical  form  of 
government;  in  Russia,  the  presumption  has  been 
5 


54  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

shifted  from  a  monarchical  to  a  republican  form; 
while  in  Spain  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  a 
monarchy.  So,  in  the  Southern  States  the  pre- 
sumption is  in  favor  of  a  strict  construction  of  the 
Constitution  as  to  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States, 
while  in  the  North  the  presumption  leans  toward  a 
more  liberal  construction  and  a  stronger  central 
government. 

The  shrewd  debater  will  always  take  advantage 
of  any  presumptions  in  his  favor;  and  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  argument  seems  against  him  on 
the  surface,  he  will  aim  to  change  such  presump- 
tion. It  very  frequently  happens  that  the  first 
efforts  of  the  debater  must  be  directed  to  combating 
popular  prejudices  or  preconceived  opinions.  The 
burden  of  proof  may  be  shifted  in  various  ways, 
depending,  of  course,  upon  the  question.  It  may 
be  done  by  showing  that  the  speaker  and  the 
hearers  are,  after  all,  not  so  far  apart  as  might 
appear  on  first  thought,  that  seeming  differences 
are  more  apparent  than  real ;  by  showing  that  one's 
ideas  are  not  new  or  revolutionary;  or  by  showing 
the  intrinsic  reasonableness  of  the  proposition. 
Suppose,  for  example,  one  is  arguing  in  favor  of 
suffrage  for  women.  He  has  existing  conditions 
and,  perhaps,  popular  opinion  against  him.  He 
might  argue  that  the  underlying  idea  of  popular 
government  is,  that  all  citizens  have  the  right  to 
participate  in  the  government  through  the  suf- 
frage, provided  they  are  capable  of  expressing  them- 
selves intelligently  on  its  operations.  Hence  all 
male  citizens  except  minors,  idiots,  and  criminals 


PROOF  55 

are  allowed  to  vote.  Women  are  also  disfran- 
chised, but  for  reasons  now  obsolete  and  merely 
traditional — since  the  political  privileges  of  women 
have  not  kept  pace  with  their  emancipation  from 
the  social  and  intellectual  bondage  of  the  past. 
It  is  therefore  for  those  who  oppose  granting  women 
the  suffrage  to  show  why  we  should  continue  this 
anachronism. 

The  following  examples  of  attempts  to  shift  the 
burden  of  proof,  in  intercollegiate  debates,  will  il- 
lustrate how  the  matter  has  been  worked  out  in 
actual  practice. 

On  the  question,  "Should  the  United  States  re- 
tain permanent  control  of  the  Philippine  Islands?'* 
the  first  speaker  on  the  affirmative  anticipated  the 
charge  of  imperialism  that  he  knew  was  likely  to 
come  from  a  Southern  audience,  as  follows: 

We  disclaim,  at  the  outset,  any  intention  or  tendency 
of  this  Government  to  embark  upon  a  general  imperial- 
istic policy  in  the  sense  of  subjecting  other  peoples  to 
our  rule  for  selfish  objects.  If  it  is  imperialism  to  hold 
the  Philippines  because  of  the  "consent  of  the  gov- 
erned" doctrine,  then  Jefferson  was  the  prince  of  im- 
perialists when  he  purchased  the  Louisiana  Territory 
over  the  protests  of  the  inhabitants.  If  you  say  that 
the  purchase  of  the  Philippines  is  not  an  analogous  case 
because  of  distance,  I  answer  that  by  the  extended  use 
of  steam  and  electricity,  Washington  is  nearer  Manila 
to-day  than  it  was  to  St.  Louis  or  New  Orleans  in  1803. 
But,  it  is  said,  great  evils  must  result  from  the  addition 
of  these  islands  to  our  territory.  Let  me  remind  you 
that  every  addition  of  territory  to  our  country  (and  we 
have  been  expansionists  from  the  beginning  of  our  his- 


56  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

tory)  was  prophesied  to  portend  the  downfall  of  the 
Republic,  while  as  a  matter  of  fact  each  accession  has 
proved  a  mutual  blessing  to  both  the  United  States  and 
the  country  added.  When  the  addition  of  Louisiana  was 
proposed,  for  example,  in  a  speech  in  Congress  Josiah 
Quincy  said:  "If  this  bill  passes,  the  bonds  of  the  Union 
are  virtually  dissolved.  The  Constitution  was  never 
intended  and  cannot  be  strained  to  overlap  the  wilder- 
ness of  the  West.  You  have  no  authority  to  throw  the 
rights  and  liberties  and  prosperity  of  this  people  into 
hotchpot  with  the  wild  men  of  Missouri,  nor  with  the 
mixed  race  of  Anglo-Gallo-Americans  who  bask  on  the 
sands  in  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi.  This  bill,  if  it 
passes,  is  a  death-blow  to  the  Constitution."  But  the 
bill  passed,  our  Constitution  survives,  our  Union  is 
more  powerfully  cemented  than  ever,  and  the  thrift  and 
enterprise  of  this  great  Southern  metropolis  suggest  any- 
thing else  than  basking  on  the  sands  of  the  Mississippi.1 

Again,  on  the  proposition  to  have  compulsory 
arbitration  of  disputes  between  public-service  cor- 
porations and  their  employees,  the  first  speaker  on 
the  affirmative  argued  that  such  changes  had  been 
wrought  in  industrial  conditions  as  to  demand  the 
remedy  proposed,  and  closed  as  follows: 

Having  seen  every  form  of  industry  affected  by  strikes 
on  railroads,  having  witnessed  destruction  of  property,  do 
the  gentlemen  of  the  negative  venture  to  say  that  the 
existing  relations  between  railroads  and  their  employees 
are  satisfactory;  do  they  deny  that  the  present  methods 
are  inadequate  to  meet  the  problem  that  confronts  us; 
and  do  they  consider  that  such  a  problem  does  not  de- 
mand solution? 

1  From  the  Texas-Tulane  debate  of  1901. 


I 

PROOF  57 

The  first  speaker  on  the  negative,  by  the  ques- 
tion-asking method,  thus  attempted  to  shift  the 
burden  of  proof: 

It  is  a  little  bit  remarkable,  perhaps,  that  one  should 
open  a  debate  without  outlining  it  in  some  way,  and 
without  even  telling  what  the  gentlemen  for  the  affirma- 
tive expect  to  prove.  It  is  barely  possible  they  don't 
expect  to  prove  anything.  Since  they  do  not  take  upon 
themselves  the  burden  of  proving  anything,  I  would  say 
that  we,  for  the  negative,  require  and  challenge  them 
to  prove  at  least  four  main  propositions:  (i)  the  need 
in  this  country  for  compulsory  boards  of  adjustment  of 
labor  disputes;  (2)  the  practicability  or  workability  of 
the  scheme  proposed;  (3)  the  possibility  in  the  face  of 
American  thought  and  the  spirit  of  our  institutions  and, 
indeed,  in  the  face  of  our  Federal  Constitution  itself — 
especially  the  thirteenth  amendment,  which  declares 
that  "no  one  shall  be  subject  to  involuntary  servitude 
except  as  a  punishment  for  crime";  and  (4)  the  gentle- 
men for  the  affirmative  must  prove  that  the  proposed 
scheme  is  expedient  and  politic. 

And  now  we  have  come  here  to  learn.  We  are  con- 
scientiously seeking  for  some  practical,  expedient,  sen- 
sible means  of  curing  one  of  our  country's  great  evils 
— quarrels  between  public  corporations  and  their  em- 
ployees. We  recognize  that  evil;  I  will  answer  the 
gentlemen,  we  don't  deny  that  evil;  and  we  are  as 
earnestly  and  conscientiously  looking  for  the  cure  as 
are  the  gentlemen  for  the  affirmative;  but  we  are  going 
to  look  pretty  sharp  to  see,  first,  that  the  panacea 
proposed  is  a  cure;  and,  second,  that  the  cure  is  not 
worse  than  the  disease.1 

1  From  the  Cornell-Pennsylvania  debate  of  1897. 


58  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

We  have  noticed  some  of  the  technical  points 
as  to  burden  of  proof  and  presumptions.  But  the 
demands  of  general  debating  are  not  satisfied  by 
observing  strictly  legal  rules,  or  even  by  satisfy- 
ing the  demands  of  logic.  This  admonition  may 
therefore  well  be  heeded:  In  general  debating,  do 
not  attempt  to  rest  your  argument  upon  technical 
presumptions.  True,  a  lawyer  may  get  a  prisoner 
free  by  discovering  a  flaw  in  the  indictment;  or 
he  may  decline  to  put  his  client  on  the  witness- 
stand  in  his  own  defense.  But  it  is  well  known 
that  this  does  not  ordinarily  convince  the  public 
of  the  prisoner's  innocence.  So,  in  general  debate, 
the  question  is  not,  for  example,  whether  a  plan 
proposed  will  meet  the  objections  urged  by  its 
opponents,  but  the  question  in  the  public  mind  is, 
Will  it,  on  the  whole,  be  a  good  plan  to  adopt? 
The  debater  must  not  so  much  attempt  to  shift 
some  purely  technical  burden  of  proof  as  the  real 
burden  of  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  hearers.  It  is 
to  be  remembered,  too,  that  you  cannot  shift  to  an 
opponent  what  properly  belongs  to  you — a  thing 
that  amateur  debaters  often  attempt.  The  burden 
of  proof  is  the  proof  that  either  side  must  assume, 
and  is  willing  to  assume,  in  order  to  establish  the 
case;  it  represents  the  demand  of  the  hearer: 
'Trove  your  case,  if  we  are  to  believe  it." 

EXERCISES 

i.  How  much  does  prejudice  or  early  training  enter  into 
your  answers  to  the  following  questions,  and  what  proof  have 
you  to  offer  to  sustain  your  answers? 


PROOF  59 

(a)  To  what  political  party  do  you  belong? 
(6)    What  church  do  you  favor? 

(c)  Do  you  approve  of  the  present  game  of  college 
football? 

(d)  What  is  the  best  government  on  earth? 

(e)  What  is  the  best  country  in  which  to  live?    The 
best  State  of  the  United  States?    The  best  town? 

2.  What  is  the  proposition  for  proof  in  the  following  speech? 
Is  the  proposition  proved?    If  not,  why  not? 

"If  there  be  any  in  this  assembly,  any  dear  friend  of  Caesar's, 
to  him  I  say  that,  Brutus'  love  to  Caesar  was  no  less  than  his. 
If  then  that  friend  demand  why  Brutus  rose  against  Caesar, 
this  is  my  answer:  Not  that  I  lov'd  Caesar  less,  but  that  I 
lov'd  Rome  more.  Had  you  rather  Caesar  were  living,  and 
die  all  slaves,  than  that  Caesar  were  dead,  to  live  all  free  men? 
As  Caesar  lov'd  me,  I  weep  for  him;  as  he  was  fortunate,  I 
rejoice  at  it;  as  he  was  valiant,  I  honor  him;  but,  as  he  was 
ambitious,  I  slew  him.  There  is  tears  for  his  love;  joy  for 
his  fortune;  honor  for  his  valor;  and  death  for  his  ambition. 
Who  is  here  so  base  that  would  be  a  bondman?  If  any,  speak; 
for  him  have  I  offended.  Who  is  here  so  rude  that  would  not 
be  a  Roman?  If  any,  speak;  for  him  have  I  offended.  Who 
is  here  so  vile  that  will  not  love  his  country?  If  any,  speak; 
for  him  I  offended." 

3.  In  the  following  propositions,   determine  those  which 
might  properly  be  used  as  assumptions,  in  the  course  of  an 
argument,  those  which  are  only  presumptions,  and  those  which 
are  mere  assertions: 

(a)   A  rolling  stone  gathers  no  moss. 
(6)    Every  cloud  has  a  silver  lining. 

(c)  Honesty  is  the  best  policy. 

(d)  You  should  decide  this  question,  not  on  the  basis  of 
your  individual  interest  alone,  but  on  the  basic  prin- 
ciple of  "the  greatest  good  to  the  greatest  number." 

(e)  A  law  may  be  a  good  law  for  a  given  community, 
though  a  bad  law  for"  individuals  in  the  community. 

(/)    The  Bible  is  the  inspired  word  of  God. 
(g)   Roosevelt  is  an  honest  man. 


60  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

(h)   The  President  of  Mexico  is  a  weak  man. 
(i)    Government  in  the  United  States  is  tending  to  become 
unduly  centralized. 

4.  Determine  the  degree  of  possible  proof  in  each  of  the 
following  questions: 

(a)  Men  are  growing  more  humane. 

(b)  People  living  in  southern  latitudes  are  more  cruel  to 
dumb  animals  than  those  living  in  the  north. 

(c)  According  to  non-Euclidian  geometry,  two  parallel 
lines  may  meet. 

(d)  The  earth  revolves  about  the  sun. 

(e)  Aaron  Burr  was  chiefly  at  fault  in  causing  the  duel 
between  himself  and  Alexander  Hamilton. 

(/)    Japanese  coolies  should  not  be  allowed  to  immigrate 
to  the  United  States. 

5.  Can  you  justify  the  pupil's  reply  in  the  following  dialogue: 
"Have  you  proved  this  proposition?"  asked  the  teacher  of 

a  class  in  geometry.  "Well,"  replied  the  pupil,  "proved  is  a 
rather  strong  word;  but  I  can  say  that  I  have  rendered  it 
highly  probable." 

6.  Where  does  the  burden  of  proof  lie  in  the  following  ques- 
tions, and  why? 

(a)  Aaron  Burr  was  guilty  of  treason. 

(b)  The  United  States  Government  should  have  general 
charge  of  interstate  railway  passenger  rates. 

(c)  Germany  was  justified  in  sinking  the  Lusitania. 

7.  Let  each  member  of  the  class  analyze  an  assigned  ques- 
tion for  debate  (see  Appendix),  the  results  to  be  given  in 
either  oral  or  written  reports  at  the  next  exercise. 


IV 

EVIDENCE 

TRACTS  and  Evidence. — The  establishment  of 
-*  facts,  and  the  inferences  therefrom,  are  the 
basis  of  all  processes  of  reasoning.  A  single  fact 
is  frequently  more  convincing  than  a  long  array 
of  theories  and  generalizations.  "A  popular  as- 
sembly," says  Emerson,  "like  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, or  the  French  Chamber,  or  the  American 
Congress,  is  commanded  by  these  two  powers — 
first  by  a  fact,  then  by  skill  of  statement." 

Evidence  is  the  raw  material  that  is  convincing 
in  itself  or  may  be  used  as  a  basis  from  which 
other  facts  or  inferences  may  be  drawn. 

A.    NATURE    OF   EVIDENCE 

Evidence  may  be  said  to  be  (i)  Direct  and  (2) 
Indirect.  In  legal  parlance,  the  terms  Testimonial 
and  Circumstantial  evidence  are  used.  Direct 
evidence  consists  of  facts  that  apply  immediately 
to  the  case  under  consideration.  Indirect  evidence 
bears  on  other  facts  which  in  turn  apply  to  the 
case  in  dispute.  Testimonial  evidence,  on  the  other 
hand,  while  direct,  is  usually  limited  to  that  given 


62  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

by  human  witnesses.  Circumstantial  evidence  is 
always  indirect  and  refers  to  facts  obtained  through 
inferences  or  in  any  manner  not  directly  through 
a  witness.  Mr.  Huxley  in  his  American  Addresses 
makes  this  distinction  clear: 

The  evidence  as  to  the  occurrence  of  any  event  in  past 
time  may  be  ranged  under  two  heads  which,  for  con- 
venience' sake,  I  will  speak  of  as  testimonial  evidence 
and  circumstantial  evidence.  By  testimonial  evidence  I 
mean  human  testimony;  and  by  circumstantial  evidence 
I  mean  evidence  which  is  not  human  testimony.  Let  me 
illustrate  by  a  familiar  example  what  I  understand  by 
these  two  kinds  of  evidence,  and  what  is  to  be  said  re- 
specting their  value. 

Suppose  that  a  man  tells  you  that  he  saw  a  person 
strike  another  and  kill  him;  that  is  testimonial  evidence 
of  the  fact  of  murder.  But  it  is  possible  to  have  circum- 
stantial evidence  of  the  fact  of  murder;  that  is  to  say, 
you  may  find  a  man  dying  with  a  wound  upon  his  head 
having  exactly  the  form  and  character  of  the  wound 
which  is  made  by  an  ax,  and,  with  due  care  in  taking 
surrounding  circumstances  into  account,  you  may  con- 
clude with  the  utmost  certainty  that  the  man  has  been 
murdered;  that  his  death  is  the  consequence  of  a  blow 
inflicted  by  another  man  with  that  implement.  We  are 
very  much  in  the  habit  of  considering  circumstantial 
evidence  as  of  less  value  than  testimonial  evidence;  and 
it  may  be  that,  where  the  circumstances  are  not  per- 
fectly clear  and  intelligible,  it  is  a  dangerous  and  unsafe 
kind  of  evidence;  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that,  in 
many  cases,  circumstantial  is  quite  as  conclusive  as 
testimonial  evidence,  and  that,  not  unfrequently,  it  is 
a  great  deal  weightier  than  testimonial  evidence.  For 
example,  take  the  case  to  which  I  referred  just  now. 


EVIDENCE  63 

The  circumstantial  evidence  may  be  better  and  more 
convincing  than  the  testimonial  evidence;  for  it  may 
be  impossible,  under  the  conditions  that  I  have  defined, 
to  suppose  that  the  man  met  his  death  from  any  cause 
but  the  violent  blow  of  an  ax  wielded  by  another  man. 
The  circumstantial  evidence  in  favor  of  a  murder  having 
been  committed,  in  that  case,  is  as  complete  and  as  con- 
vincing as  evidence  can  be.  It  is  evidence  which  is 
open  to  no  doubt  and  to  no  falsification.  But  the  testi- 
mony of  a  witness  is  open  to  multitudinous  doubts.  He 
may  have  been  mistaken.  He  may  have  been  actuated 
by  malice.  It  has  constantly  happened  that  even  an 
accurate  man  has  declared  that  a  thing  has  happened 
in  this,  or  that,  or  the  other  way,  when  a  careful  analysis 
of  the  circumstantial  evidence  has  shown  that  it  did  not 
happen  in  that  way,  but  in  some  other  way. 

DIRECT  EVIDENCE. — This  positive  evidence  is  of 
inestimable  value  to  the  lawyer  and  in  all  ques- 
tions of  fact.  It  is  very  conclusive  and  convinc- 
ing. "Facts  are  stubborn  things"  and  prove  by 
their  mere  presence.  Even  the  disciple  Thomas 
was  convinced  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  when 
he  was  permitted  to  place  his  hands  in  the  wounds 
of  the  Saviour.  Four  kinds  of  direct  evidence  are 
usually  recognized: 

1.  Judicial  Notice. — This  includes  a  certain  group 
of  facts  that  is  considered  common  knowledge; 
facts  that  everybody  connected  with  the  case  is 
expected  to  know;   matters  of  which  the  court  in 
legal  procedure  takes  ' '  judicial  notice. ' '    Examples : 
Washington  is  the  capital  of  the  United  States; 
The  sun  rises  in  the  east. 

2.  Demonstrative. — Evidence  that  can  be  repre- 


64  HOW   TO   DEBATE 

sented  to  the  senses,  that  can  be  seen,  heard,  felt, 
etc.  It  is  the  res  ipse,  or  the  thing  itself.  Should 
the  question  arise  whether  or  not  a  man  had  his 
arm  broken  in  a  railway  accident,  the  broken  limb 
itself  would  be  conclusive  proof  of  the  fact.  Or,  if 
it  were  questioned  whether  or  not  a  certain  man 
had  made  a  will  before  he  died,  the  exhibition  of  the 
will  in  question  would  be  demonstrative  evidence. 

3.  Documentary. — To  prove  that  two  parties  had 
agreed  to  marry,  their  correspondence  embodying 
such  agreement  might  be  presented.     And,   gen- 
erally, any  written  statement  attesting  to  the  facts 
in  dispute  would  be  documentary  evidence. 

4.  Testimony. — Evidence  presented  by  a  human 
witness — one   who   has   direct   knowledge   of   the 
facts.     It  must  not  be  " hearsay,"  or  the  repetition 
of  what  he  has  heard  others  say,  nor  what  he  thinks, 
unless  giving  expert  testimony,  but  what  he  has 
actually  seen  or   heard — what   he  himself   knows 
to  be  true  to  his  best  knowledge  and  belief. 

INDIRECT  EVIDENCE. — Sometimes  the  facts  or 
circumstances  in  dispute  are  of  such  character  that 
they  cannot  be  brought  forth  through  direct  evi- 
dence, or  perhaps  there  is  no  living  witness  to  offer 
testimonial  evidence.  In  such  cases  one  must 
arrive  at  the  facts  by  a  series  of  other  facts,  which 
by  experience  has  been  found  so  associated  with 
the  facts  in  question  that  they  lead  us  to  a  satis- 
factory and  inevitable  conclusion.  This  is  circum- 
stantial evidence.  Robinson  Crusoe  saw  the  print 
of  a  human  foot  in  the  sand,  and  concluded  that 
some  human  being  had  visited  his  island.  He  had 


EVIDENCE  65 

not  seen  any  one,  but  his  inference  based  on  past 
experience  could  lead  to  no  other  satisfactory  con- 
clusion. 

The  value  of  circumstantial  evidence  depends  on 
(i)  the  basic  facts  from  which  we  draw  inferences, 
and  (2)  the  correctness  of  the  reasoning  process. 

Circumstantial  evidence,  I  need  hardly  tell  you,  is 
most  delusive  in  its  character.  Analyzed,  what  do 
we  find  it  to  be?  It  has  been  truly  argued  that  there  is, 
and  can  be,  no  cause  without  an  effect.  In  considering 
circumstantial  evidence,  the  mind  of  the  investigator 
is  presented  with  the  relation  of  a  number  of  facts,  or 
effects,  and  he  is  asked  to  deduce  that  they  are  all  at- 
tributable to  a  stated  cause.  For  example,  a  peddler  is 
known  to  have  started  out  upon  a  lonely  road,  and  to 
have  in  his  pack  certain  wares,  a  given  amount  of  money 
in  specified  coins  and  bills,  wearing  a  watch  and  chain, 
and  he  is  subsequently  found  murdered,  by  the  way- 
side. Later,  a  tramp  is  arrested  upon  whose  person  is 
found  the  exact  missing  money,  and  many  of  the  arti- 
cles which  were  known  to  have  been  in  the  pack.  He  is 
charged  with  the  crime,  and  the  evidence  against  him 
is  circumstantial.  His  possession  of  these  articles  is  an 
effect,  which  is  said  to  be  attributable  to  a  cause,  to 
wit,  the  killing  of  the  peddler.  But  strong  as  such  evi- 
dence may  appear,  as  I  have  said,  it  is  delusive.  For 
just  as  the  prosecution  asks  you  to  believe  that  a  number 
of  effects  are  traceable  to  a  single  cause,  the  crime  charged, 
so  also  it  is  possible  that  all  of  the  effects  may  have  re- 
sulted from  various  causes.  Thus  in  the  case  cited  the 
tramp  may  have  been  a  thief,  and  may  have  stolen  the 
articles  from  the  peddler  after  some  other  person  had 
killed  him.  And  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  watch 
and  chain  were  missing,  and  yet  were  not  found  upon 


66  HOW   TO   DEBATE 

the  tramp,  that  would  be  as  good  evidence  in  his  favor 
as  the  other  facts  are  against  him.  So  that  in  circum- 
stantial evidence  the  chain  must  be  complete.  If  a 
single  link  be  missing,  or  have  a  flaw,  the  argument  is 
inconclusive,  and  a  doubt  is  created,  the  benefit  of 
which  must  invariably  be  given  in  favor  of  the  accused.1 

The  debater  gets  his  facts  from  his  own  knowl- 
edge of  the  matters  in  question,  from  talking  with 
others  who  are  qualified  to  speak,  and  yet  more 
from  "documentary"  evidence — official  publica- 
tions, books,  periodicals,  and  newspapers — and 
from  the  facts  so  gathered  he  reaches,  by  a  proc- 
ess of  reasoning,  certain  conclusions  as  to  facts  in 
dispute. 

In  legal  procedure  a  large  number  of  principles 
and  rules  relative  to  the  value  and  admissibility  of 
various  kinds  of  evidence  have  been  formulated 
in  a  code  of  practice.  The  debater  is  bound  by 
no  such  rules;  and  yet,  since  these  rules  of  law  are 
based  on  the  common  judgment  of  mankind,  the 
debater  should  be  slow  to  use  what  a  court  of  law 
would  reject. 

TESTS   AS   TO   THE   NATURE    OP   EVIDENCE 

1.  It  should  be  definite. 

2.  It  should  be  complete.   . 

3.  It  should  be  consistent   (a)   with  itself,    (6) 
with  other  facts  in  the  case,  and  (c)  with  ordinary 
experience. 

The  foregoing  tests  should  be  applied  to  the 


Ottolengui,  Modern  Wizard,  p.  170. 


EVIDENCE  67 

testimony  of  the  witness  on  the  stand,  and  to  the 
evidence  presented  in  a  debate.  Evidence,  to  be 
convincing,  must  meet  these  tests — tests  that  we 
are  not  now  applying  to  the  witness  or  the  authority, 
but  to  the  evidence  standing  by  itself. 

1.  Evidence  must  be  definite. — Testimony  that  is 
vague  and  ambiguous  is  of  little  value.     Very  fre- 
quently a  debater  talks  around  the  subject.     His 
statistics  are  not  accurate,  and  his  inferences  vague 
and  uncertain.     He  is  said  to  be  "bluffing."     He 
does  not  know  what  he  is  talking  about,  but  wishes 
to  make  it  appear  that  he  does.     Not  only  must 
the  facts  submitted  be  accurate,  but  the  language 
expressing  these  facts  must  be  definite. 

2.  Evidence  should  be  complete. — A  half-truth  is  a 
very  doubttul  proposition,  and  not  infrequently  an 
untruth.     Witnesses  are  sworn  to  "tell  the  truth, 
the   whole   truth,    and   nothing   but   the   truth." 
When  a  debater  stops  short  of  a  complete  state- 
ment of  the  facts  or  evidence,  and  conceals  that 
part  of  the  truth  which  may  be  harmful  to  his  side 
— such  procedure,  when  exposed,  only  reacts,  as  it 
should,  detrimentally  to  his  whole  argument.     A 
debater  can  easily  prejudice  an  audience  against 
his  case  by  being  overzealous  in  upholding  his  side 
of  the  question  at  the  sacrifice  of  well-known  and 
obvious  facts  to  the  contrary.     He  then  no  longer 
appears  to  be  seeking  the  truth,  but  to  win.     Every 
debater  must  meet  each  issue  squarely,  and  not 
present  facts  and  figures  that  are  directly  mis- 
leading.    Yet  many  students  persist  in  making  the 
"worse  appear  the  better  reason,"  and  will  call 


68  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

black  white  if  they  think  their  opponents  will  not 
detect  the  erroneous  statements.     Such  procedure 
cannot  be  too  emphatically  condemned. 
3.  Evidence  should  be  consistent: 
(a)    With  itself. — Is  the  evidence  credible,  re- 
gardless of  its  comparison  with  other  known 
facts?     Does  it  in  itself  hang  together?    Is 
it  self -consistent  or  self -contradictory  ?     In 
a  trial  at  law,  it  is  not  infrequently  the  pur- 
pose of  the  cross-examination  to  bring  forth 
contradictory  statements — to  lead  the  wit- 
ness to  impeach  himself.     And  so  the  de- 
bater generally  must  be  constantly  on  his 
guard   against  inconsistencies  in   the  evi- 
dence he  examines.     Macaulay,  for  exam- 
ple,  in  his  review  of   Croker's  edition   of 
Bo  swell's  Johnson,  points  out  the  following 
contradictions  on  the  part  of  the  editor: 

Mr.  Croker  tells  us  in  a  note  that  Derrick, 
who  was  master  of  the  ceremonies  at  Bath,  died 
very  poor  in  1760.  We  read  on;  and,  a  few 
pages  later,  we  find  Dr.  Johnson  and  Boswell 
talking  of  this  same  Derrick  as  still  living  and 
reigning,  as  having  retrieved  his  character,  as 
possessing  so  much  power  over  his  subjects  at 
Bath  that  his  opposition  might  be  fatal  to 
Sheridan's  lectures  on  oratory.  And  all  this  in 
1763.  The  fact  is,  that  Derrick  died  in  1769. 
...  In  one  note  we  read  that  Sir  Herbert  Croft 
.  .  .  died  in  1805.  Another  note  in  the  same 
volume  states  that  this  same  Herbert  Croft 
died  ...  on  the  27th  of  April,  1816. 


EVIDENCE  69 

(b)  It  should  be  consistent  with  the  other  facts  in 
the  case. — Any  evidence  that  varies  ma- 
terially from  facts  already  proved  or  gen- 
erally accepted  is  at  once  open  to  suspicion 
and   is    ordinarily    discredited.     The    evi- 
dence   as    a    whole    must   hang    together. 
Evidence  at  variance  with  a  clearly  estab- 
lished fact  is  worthless.     It  is  told  of  Lin- 
coln that  in  a  certain  case  he  elicited  from 
a  witness,  in  considerable  detail,  testimony 
of  things  seen  by  the  aid  of  the  moonlight 
on  a  certain  night.     An  almanac  was  then 
introduced  to  show  that  there  was  no  moon 
on  the  night  in  question. 

(c)  It  should  be  consistent  with  ordinary  experi- 
ence.— People  are  slow  to  believe  anything 
that  fails  to  tally  with  human  nature  and 
experience.     Is  an  allegation  true,  on  the 
face  of  it?    is  a  test  question   constantly 
applied.     Is  it  reasonable?     Is  it  in  accord 
with  common  sense?     Is  it  consistent  with 
the  natural  course  of  affairs?    This  is  one 
of  the  tests  that  the  trial  lawyer,  both  in 
cross-examination  and  in  the  closing  argu- 
ment, is  frequently  called  upon  to  apply. 
In  the  celebrated  case  of  Rex  vs.  Forbes, 
for  example,  one  Doctor  McNamara  testified 
that  he  saw  the  defendant  hurl  a  bottle  at 
the  Lord-Lieutenant  of  Ireland  from  the 
upper  gallery  of  a  theater.     The  defend- 
ant's attorney,  John  Henry  North,  attacked 
this  testimony  as  follows: 


70  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

The  Doctor  in  the  middle  gallery  sees  Hand- 
wich  in  the  third  row  of  the  upper  one,  though 
between  them  there  were  two  benches  covered 
with  people,  and  the  boarded  parapet  in  front 
of  the  upper  gallery  besides!  Through  all 
these  obstacles  he  sees  him  in  that  dark  corner 
of  the  gallery  where  he  represents  him  to  be 
placed;  sees  him  fling  the  bottle,  and  is  now 
able,  at  this  distance  of  time,  to  identify  his 
person.  The  bottle  itself  he  saw  in  what  he 
learnedly  calls  its  transit.  A  word  or  two  on 
that  same  transit.  I  hold  it  physically  impos- 
sible that  a  bottle  could  have  taken  the  course 
described  by  Farrell  McNamara,  from  the  up- 
per gallery  to  the  stage,  without  being  observed 
by  four  or  five  hundred  spectators.  Just  think 
what  the  theater  is:  a  wide,  illuminated  area, 
whose  bounding  surfaces  are  studded  with  eyes 
as  numerous  as  those  of  Argus.  Not  a  square 
inch  in  that  field  of  view  which  was  not  painted 
on  the  retina  of  some  one  eye  or  other  in  that 
vast  assembly.  Consider,  too,  the  time — the 
interval  between  the  play  and  farce — when  the 
attention  of  the  audience  was  not  fixed  upon  the 
stage,  when  people  were  all  looking  about  them 
recognizing  and  greeting  their  friends  and  ac- 
quaintances. Was  there  no  one  to  mark  this 
bottle  but  Farrell  McNamara,  and  the  young 
medical  student?  What,  not  one  giggling  girl 
in  the  boxes,  glancing  around  for  admiration! 
not  an  opera-glass  pointed!  no  fortunate  ob- 
server of  the  transit  but  the  astronomer  from 
Ballinakill!  Is  all  this  credible?  But  this  is 
not  all — "voonders  upon  voonders,"  as  the 
Dutchman  said  when  he  got  to  London — the 


EVIDENCE  71 

greatest  miracle  is  to  come.  Down  comes  the 
bottle,  thundering  from  the  upper  gallery  to 
the  stage,  and  falls  unbroken!1 


B.    SOURCES    OF   EVIDENCE 

Knowledge  is  not  hereditary.  It  does  not  fall 
like  manna  from  heaven.  Yet  "  Knowledge  is 
power."  ''Keep  your  feet  forever  on  a  fact," 
said  Emerson;  "only  then  are  you  invincible." 
How  do  we  get  facts,  knowledge,  and  wisdom  ? 

1 .  Through  Experience. — Daily  from  childhood  we 
have  been  accumulating  experience.     Not  a  day 
passes  that  we  do  not  add  to  our  knowledge;    we 
never  get  too  old  to  learn.     Personal  knowledge 
comes  to  us  in  two  ways:   (i)  By  observation,  and 
(2)  by  experiment. 

Whenever  we  observe  the  phenomena  about  us  as 
they  are  found  in  nature  we  learn  by  Observation. 
The  scientist  watches  the  rat,  how  it  lives,  what  it 
eats,  and  has  opportunity  to  observe  its  degree  of 
intelligence  in  many  ways.  But  the  scientist  is 
not  content  with  this  mode  of  increasing  his  knowl- 
edge. He  captures  a  number  of  rats,  puts  them  in 
a  specially  constructed  cage,  and  trains  and  watches 
them  under  test  conditions,  and  in  this  way  adds 
much  to  his  knowledge  of  these  animals  which 
could  not  be  secured  in  any  other  way. 

2 .  Through  Testimony. — Much  of  our  information 
must  come  through  others.     Life  is  too  brief  to 
learn  much  through  experience,  so  we  accept  facts 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  p.  659. 


72  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

second-handed.  We  believe  that  they  are  true  to 
the  extent  of  our  faith  in  the  credibility  and  ability 
of  the  party  informing  us.  Testimony  that  comes 
from  a  person  whose  opinions  on  certain  matters  are 
generally  accepted  is  spoken  of  as  an  Authority. 

But  before  placing  much  reliance  in  testimony, 
whether  it  be  from  authority  or  otherwise,  it 
should  be  submitted  to  the  following  tests: 


TESTS  AS  TO  THE  SOURCE  OF  EVIDENCE 

The  probative  value  of  testimonial  evidence  is 
measured  by  the  following  tests  of  the  witness: 
(i)  Is  he  able  and  willing  to  perceive  and  tell  the 
truth?  (2)  Has  he  had  opportunity  to  know  the 
facts?  (3)  Is  he  an  expert?  (4)  Is  he  unprej- 
udiced? (5)  Does  he  speak  from  personal  knowl- 
edge? 

i.  Ability  and  Character. — Is  the  witness  men- 
tally sound  and  reliable?  Has  he  a  keen  percep- 
tion? Does  he  see  the  things  that  are,  and  not 
see  the  things  that  are  not?  Two  persons  were 
once  climbing  a  range  of  mountains.  All  at  once 
one  of  them,  a  young  boy,  exclaimed,  in  great  sur- 
prise, that  he  saw  a  terrible  monster  on  the  top  of 
a  mountain.  It  had  long  legs  and  arms,  a  hideous 
head,  and  was  dancing  vigorously,  sometimes  in 
midair.  His  companion  saw  no  monster.  The 
boy  was  positive.  There  was  no  doubt  about  it, 
until  he  discovered  that  a  tiny  spider  had  dropped 
with  his  web  from  the  rim  of  the  boy's  hat  and 
was  dangling  just  in  front  of  one  of  his  eyes. 


EVIDENCE  73 

Imagining  the  object  at  a  great  distance  made  it 
appear  large.  Many  people  hear  strange  sounds, 
which  they  are  equally  positive  come  from  their 
spiritual  friends  who  have  returned  to  earth. 
Keen  perception  is  based  on  the  correct  interpreta- 
tion of  impressions  received  through  the  senses. 

Other  attributes  of  mental  soundness  are:  a 
retentive  memory  and  the  power  of  sustained 
attention.  Not  only  must  a  witness  perceive 
accurately  and  retain  clearly,  but  he  must  be 
capable  of  mentally  dwelling  on  a  percept  until  it 
becomes  his  own.  Such  power  denotes  the  line  of 
demarcation  between  the  sane  and  the  insane.  Sus- 
tained attention  is  not  possible  in  persons  that 
have  a  weak  mind,  or  those  who  are  known  as 
' '  mentally  defective . '  * 

Finally,  is  the  witness  morally  trustworthy?  A 
liar  is  not  believed  even  when  he  tells  the  truth. 
Every  "character"  witness  is  asked,  "What  is  his 
reputation  in  his  home  community  for  truth  and 
veracity?"  And  if  one  has  a  general  reputation 
for  untruthfulness,  his  testimony  is  of  little  or  no 
value.  The  ordinary  trial  at  law  shows  witnesses 
so  at  variance  that  it  is  frequently  no  small  part 
of  the  lawyer's  work  to  demonstrate  who  is  telling 
the  truth.  Thus,  in  the  Dalton  divorce  case, 
Rufus  Choate  attacked  the  testimony  of  one  of  the 
leading  witnesses  for  the  plaintiff  as  follows: 

I  begin,  therefore,  with  the  foundation  witness  in  this 
case,  John  H.  Coburn,  and  I  respectfully  submit  to  you, 
that  tried  by  every  test  of  credibility  which  the  law 
recognizes,  on  your  oaths  you  are  bound  to  disbelieve 


74  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

him.  It  is  not  that  a  laugh  can  be  raised  against  Co- 
burn  or  this  testimony — that  is  nothing;  it  is  that,  ac- 
cording to  those  tests  which  are  founded  on  the  longest 
and  widest  experience  the  law  deems  satisfactory  to 
show  whether  a  jury  can  safely  believe  or  not,  he  is  not 
to  be  believed.  I  submit,  then,  that  John  H.  Coburn 
is  not  an  honest  man,  and  is  not,  therefore,  entitled  to 
be  heard  in  so  delicate  a  work  as  bringing  every  word 
my  client  spoke  on  that  evening  to  her  husband;  he  is 
not  an  honest  man,  and  I  put  it  on  your  solemn  oath 
to  you,  that  there  is  not  a  man  on  this  jury  who,  on  the 
exhibition  of  John  H.  Coburn,  would  intrust  him  to 
carry  a  bundle  worth  five  dollars  from  this  court-house 
to  the  depot.1 

2.  Opportunity  to  know  the  facts. — Was  the  witness 
where  he  could  get  at  the  facts  first-handed?    Was 
he  present  when  the  accident  in  question  occurred  ? 
Was  he  in  the  proper  position  to  have  been  able 
to  observe  the  facts  ?    The  testimony  of  Sam  Weller, 
in  Dickens's  Pickwick  Papers,  is  illustrative: 

"Now,  attend,  Mr.  Weller,"  said  Serjeant  Buzfuz. 
"You  were  in  the  passage,  and  yet  you  saw  nothing  of 
what  was  going  forward.  Have  you  a  pair  of  eyes, 
Mr.  Weller?" 

"Yes,  I  have  a  pair  of  eyes,"  replied  Sam,  "and  that's 
just  it.  If  they  were  a  pair  o'  patent  double  million 
magnifyin'  gas  microscopes  of  hextra  power,  p'raps  I 
might  be  able  to  see  through  a  flight  o'  stairs  and  a  deal 
door,  but  bein'  only  eyes,  you  see,  my  wision's  limited." 

3.  Expert. — The  main  question  at  issue  here  is, 
does  the  witness  or  the  authority  cited  have  a  right 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  pp.  307-311. 


EVIDENCE  75 

to  be  believed  because  of  his  unusual  knowledge  of 
the  facts  relative  to  the  case  under  discussion? 
He  may  have  had  an  opportunity  to  know  the 
facts,  but  does  he  know?  He  may  be  mentally 
sound,  physically  competent,  and  morally  trust- 
worthy, but  has  he  exercised  these  functions  in 
acquiring  facts  pertinent  to  the  question  at  issue? 
A  student  may  have  attended  a  medical  school  for 
four  years,  graduated,  passed  the  State  board  of 
examiners,  and  yet  not  be  an  authority  on  medi- 
cine. The  question  still  remains,  is  he  generally 
recognized  as  an  authority  on  a  particular  subject? 
A  man  may  be  an  authority  on  theology,  and  not 
qualify  as  an  expert  witness  on  plumbing.  And 
merely  because  a  man  is  a  superintendent  of  schools 
or  a  teacher  of  zoology  does  not  qualify  him  to  be 
a  judge  of  a  declamation  or  debating  contest. 

A  debater  should  seldom  advance  his  own  opin- 
ion, except  on  local  questions  about  which  he  has 
direct  knowledge,  as  his  opinion  cannot  carry  any 
weight  unless  he  is  an  authority  on  the  subject. 
It  is  presumption  carried  to  the  point  of  the  ridicu- 
lous for  the  ordinary  high-school  or  college  debater 
to  say,  when  discussing  great  problems  of  national 
import,  "After  studying  this  problem  for  six  months 
I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  thus  and 
so."  The  "I  know"  and  "I  believe"  of  the 
student,  when  used  at  all,  should  be  on  questions 
of  fact  rather  than  on  questions  of  policy. 

Webster  was  recognized  as  an  authority  on  con- 
stitutional law,  and  in  the  celebrated  Smith  Will 
Trial  he  used  the  personal  pronoun  with  telling 


76  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

effect.  Mr.  Choate,  the  opposing  counsel,  quoted 
a  decision  of  Lord-Chancellor  Camden.  "But  it  is 
not  mine,''  said  Mr.  Choate,  "it  is  Lord  Camden's." 
In  reply  Mr.  Webster  said:  "Lord  Camden  was  a 
great  judge;  he  is  respected  by  every  American, 
for  he  was  on  our  side  in  the  Revolution ;  but,  may 
it  please  your  Honor,  I  differ  from  my  Lord  Cam- 
den." Webster  had  earned  the  right  to  the  per- 
sonal pronoun,  but  there  was  scarcely  another 
lawyer  in  the  United  States  at  that  time  who 
could  have  used  that  expression  without  exposing 
himself  to  ridicule. 

4.  Unprejudiced. — Just  as  an  admission  against 
one's  interest  is  considered  inherently  strong,  so 
evidence  that  shows  bias,  from  whatever  motive, 
is  inherently  weak.  Not  that  an  interested  wit- 
ness may  not  tell  the  truth,  but  his  evidence  is  apt 
to  be  viewed  with  more  suspicion  than  the  testi- 
mony of  one  who  has  no  motive  for  desiring  that 
this  or  that  side  of  a  disputed  fact  may  be  true. 
When  we  consider  the  fallibility  of  human  testi- 
mony at  its  best,  due  to  lack  of  accurate  observa- 
tion and  memory,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  testi- 
mony of  a  prejudiced  witness  should  be  viewed 
with  suspicion.  The  most  honest  of  men  are  apt 
to  see  events  as  they  hope  to  see  them.  A  striking 
illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the  conflicting  reports 
of  the  Spanish  and  American  commissions  that  in- 
vestigated the  cause  of  the  destruction  of  the 
battle-ship  Maine.  With  the  same  facts  before 
them,  the  two  commissions  reached  conclusions 
diametrically  opposed  to  each  other.  So,  expert 


EVIDENCE  77 

testimony  in  trials  at  law  is  nowadays  apt  to  be 
discredited,  since  the  expert  usually  has  either  a 
financial  or  professional  interest  in  the  outcome. 
5.  Personal  Knowledge. — In  seeking  evidence  on 
a  fact  in  dispute,  the  evidence  should  be  adduced 
trom  original  sources,  whenever  possible.  Second- 
hand knowledge  is  relatively  weak.  Hence  the 
general  rule  in  law  that  "  hearsay "  evidence  is  in- 
admissible; "its  intrinsic  weakness,"  says  Green- 
leaf,  "its  incompetency  to  satisfy  the  mind  as  to 
the  existence  of  the  fact,  and  the  frauds  that  may 
be  practised  under  its  cover,  combine  to  support 
the  rule."  In  argumentation  generally,  the  farther 
the  evidence  of  a  fact  in  question  is  removed  from 
the  personal  knowledge  of  a  witness  the  weaker 
the  evidence  becomes.  Thus,  in  questions  of  gov- 
ernmental administration  official  publications  are 
far  more  trustworthy  than  newspaper  reports.  If 
one  were  arguing  the  question,  "Should  Cuba  be 
annexed  to  the  United  States?"  and  the  question 
arose  as  to  the  desire  of  the  inhabitants  of  Cuba 
regarding  annexation,  such  desire  could  be  best 
shown,  not  by  the  reports  of  travelers  in  the  island, 
or  by  the  reports  of  our  consuls  there,  but  by  the 
statements  of  representative  Cubans  themselves. 
So,  on  the  question  of  the  incorporation  of  labor 
unions,  the  willingness  of  the  unions  to  be  incor- 
porated must  be  proved,  not  by  the  testimony  of 
an  economist  or  a  government  official,  but  by  the 
statements  and  actions  of  the  labor  leaders  them- 
selves. In  the  search  for  evidence,  then,  first-hand 
statements  are  first  to  be  sought.  The  debater 


78  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

must  ask  himself,  Is  this  the  best  available  testi- 
mony that  can  be  adduced? 


C.    TESTIMONY   ESPECIALLY   VALUABLE 

All  testimony  has  not  the  same  weight.  It  will 
vary  with  different  witnesses  and  with  different 
circumstances.  These  fall  under  four  groups: 

1.  Testimony  by  the  opposition. — Witnesses  that 
belong  to  one  side  of  the  case,  say  that  of  the 
plaintiff,  are  usually  cross-questioned  by  the  op- 
posing attorney  in  an  attempt  to  elicit  information 
of  value  to  the  defendant.     Such  information  has 
special  value  in  the  minds  of  the  jury.     So,  authors 
quoted  by  those  arguing  one  side  of  a  question  in 
a  debate  may  be  quoted  with  telling  effect  by  those 
maintaining  the  other  side. 

2.  Unwilling  Testimony. — By  unwilling  testimo- 
ny is  meant  any  concessions  or  admissions  by  a 
witness  that  are  hostile  to  his  interests.     If  the 
owner  of  a  line  of  steamships  makes  statements  in 
opposition  to  ship  subsidies,  or  a  manufacturer  to 
a  protective  tariff,  this  would  be  taken  as  strong 
evidence — unless,  of  course,  it  be  shown  that  in 
some  way  the  witness's  interests  are  not  really 
opposed  to  his  statements,  such  as  his  desire  to 
destroy  a  competing  rival  or  to  engage  in  a  new 
business  not  needing  protection.     In  the  following 
argument,  Senator  Albert  J.  Beveridge  shows  that 
while  corporations  having  to  do  with  interstate 
commerce  might  naturally  be  supposed  to  favor 
" centralization"  as  opposed  to  "States'  rights," 


EVIDENCE  79 

still  their  interests  sometimes  lie  in  favoring  the 
latter  doctrine: 

Powerful  interests  which  exploit  the  people  and  the 
nation's  resources  can  more  easily  handle  a  smaller  por- 
tion of  the  American  people  for  their  purposes  than 
they  can  handle  the  entire  eighty  millions  of  the  people 
for  their  purposes.  And  if  they  are  defeated  in  one 
State — one  small  subdivision  of  the  American  people — 
they  always  have  forty-five  other  chances. 

This  analysis  reveals  the  heart  of  the  present  battle 
against  the  people's  instinctive  effort  toward  national 
unity.  Every  corporation,  so  great  that  its  business  is 
nation-wide,  is  championing  States'  rights.  Every  rail- 
road that  has  felt  the  regulating  hand  of  the  nation's 
Government  is  earnestly  for  States'  rights.  Every  trust 
attorney  is  declaiming  about  "the  dangers  of  centraliza- 
tion." .  .  .  And  does  anybody  doubt  that  the  real  reason 
of  those  mighty  financial  interests  for  engineering  this 
twentieth-century  crusade  for  States'  rights  is  that  they 
believe  that  by  curbing  the  power  of  the  American  people 
expressed  through  the  people's  Congress  they  can  better 
protect  their  plans  for  financial  gain?1 

3.  Negative  Testimony. — This  class  of  evidence, 
also  called  "the  testimony  of  silence,"  consists  in 
"the  failure  of  a  witness  to  mention  a  fact  so  strik- 
ing that  he  must  have  noticed  it  had  it  occurred." 
In  his  speech  on  "Conciliation"  Burke  based  the 
following  argument  on  negative  testimony: 

We  see  the  sense  of  the  Crown,  and  the  sense  of  Parlia- 
ment, on  the  productive  nature  of  a  revenue  by  grant. 
Now  search  the  same  journals  for  the  produce  of  the 

1  The  Reader  Magazine  for  March,  1907. 


80  HOW   TO   DEBATE 

revenue  by  imposition.  Where  is  it?  Let  us  know  the 
volume  and  the  page.  What  is  the  gross,  what  is  the 
net  produce  ?  To  what  service  is  it  applied  ?  How  have 
you  appropriated  its  surplus?  What,  can  none  of  the 
many  skilful  index-makers  that  we  are  now  employing 
find  any  trace  of  it?  Well,  let  them  and  that  rest 
together.  But  are  the  journals,  which  say  nothing  of 
the  revenue,  as  silent  on  the  discontent?  Oh  no!  a 
child  may  find  it.  It  is  the  melancholy  burden  and  blot 
of  every  page. 

4.  Undesigned  Testimony. — By  undesigned  tes- 
timony is  meant  such  evidence  as  a  speaker  or 
writer  states  inadvertently  or  incidentally,  with- 
out any  thought  as  to  its  value  or  bearing  on  a 
question  in  dispute.  To  be  of  value,  however,  such 
inadvertence  must  not  amount  to  any  suspicion  of 
carelessness  or  inaccuracy.  In  the  absence  of  any 
such  suspicion,  undesigned  testimony,  having  be- 
hind it  no  motive  or  bias,  ordinarily  carries  with 
it  a  strong  presumption  of  its  truthfulness.  Web- 
ster makes  use  of  such  presumption  in  the  White 
murder  trial,  as  follows: 

Mr.  Southwick  swears  all  that  a  man  can  swear.  He 
has  the  best  means  of  judging  that  could  be  had  at  the 
time.  He  tells  you  that  he  left  his  father's  house  at  half- 
past  ten  o'clock,  and  as  he  passed  to  his  own  house  in 
Brown  Street  he  saw  a  man  sitting  on  the  steps  of  the 
rope- walk;  that  he  passed  him  three  times,  and  each 
time  he  held  down  his  head,  so  that  he  did  not  see  his 
face.  That  the  man  had  on  a  cloak,  which  was  not 
wrapped  around  him,  and  a  glazed  cap.  That  he  took 
the  man  to  be  Frank  Knapp  at  the  time;  that,  when  he 
went  into  his  house,  he  told  his  wife  that  he  thought  it 


EVIDENCE  81 

was  Frank  Knapp ;  that  he  knew  him  well,  having  known 
him  from  a  boy.  And  his  wife  swears  that  he  did  so  tell 
her  when  he  came  home.  What  could  mislead  this 
witness  at  the  time  ?  He  was  not  then  suspecting  Frank 
Knapp  of  anything.  He  could  not  then  be  influenced 
by  any  prejudice.  If  you  believe  that  the  witness  saw 
Frank  Knapp  in  this  position  at  this  time,  it  proves  the 
case. 

Again,  in  the  trial  of  Mrs.  Carman  for  the  shoot- 
ing of  Mrs.  Bailey,  which  occurred  in  the  office  of 
Mrs.  Carman's  husband,  a  dictagraph  connection 
with  the  Carman  residence  having  been  installed, 
the  following  newspaper  excerpt  shows  a  bit  of 
undesigned  testimony  secured  from  Mrs.  Car- 
man's daughter: 

Elizabeth's  most  damaging  bit  of  evidence,  however, 
was  given  later.  It  was  after  she  had  told  that  she  had 
come  in  from  play  and  had  gone  to  the  piano  to  practise. 
This  was  at  the  time  when  Mrs.  Carman  had  gone  up- 
stairs, also  when  Mrs.  Bailey  went  in  to  see  the  doctor. 

"How  long  did  you  stay  at  the  piano?" 

"About  ten  minutes,  or  fifteen,"  she  replied. 

"Did  any  one  say  anything  to  you  about  stopping 
playing?"  she  was  asked. 

"My  mother  did." 

Those  three  words,  uttered  out  of  the  innocence  of  a 
childish  mouth  telling  the  truth,  may  be  the  most  fatal 
three  words  that  little  Elizabeth  Carman  may  ever  utter. 

The  dictagraph,  according  to  experts,  is  hardest  to 
be  heard  over  when  any  music  is  about. 

The  foregoing  are  some  of  the  tests  governing 
the  value  of  evidence  adduced  from  our  common 
experience  with  witnesses  of  all  kinds.  In  general 


82  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

debate  the  main  point  to  be  remembered  is,  that 
the  value  of  the  evidence  produced  should  be 
clearly  brought  out  in  the  course  of  the  argument. 
In  a  legal  trial,  a  lawyer  has  an  opportunity  of 
testing  evidence  by  the  examination  and  cross- 
examination  of  witnesses.  The  general  debater 
has  no  such  opportunity.  He  must  usually  present 
his  evidence  from  the  published  statements  of  the 
witnesses,  and  he  must  be  able  to  show  in  a  few 
words  why  the  evidence  is  to  be  believed,  to  point 
out  the  difference  between  second-hand  testimony, 
based  upon  mere  rumor  or  newspaper  gossip,  and 
that  derived  first-hand  from  capable  and  disinter- 
ested witnesses.  When  facts  are  in  dispute,  or 
when  the  setting  forth  of  the  facts  is  an  essential 
step  in  the  proof  of  a  proposition,  the  handling  of 
evidence  has  no  small  bearing  on  the  effectiveness 
of  an  argument. 

D.   COLLECTING   EVIDENCE 

Reading.  —  Prior  to  determining  upon  a  final 
line  of  proof,  and  sometimes,  it  may  be,  before  a 
complete  preliminary  analysis  is  worked  out,  the 
student  will  need  to  do  some  reading  on  the  ques- 
tion for  debate;  for  questions  are  rare  in  which  one 
can  depend  for  arguments  solely  on  his  own  experi- 
ence and  thought.  But  in  view  of  two  common 
faults  of  students  in  preparing  debates,  these  two 
corresponding  admonitions  should  be  heeded:  (i) 
Do  not  make  reading  a  substitute  for  thinking,  and 
(2)  Study  both  sides  of  the  question. 


EVIDENCE  83 

i.  Thinking  should  precede,  accompany,  and 
follow  any  reading  on  the  question  under  investi- 
gation. In  taking  up  the  consideration  of  any 
proposition  for  debate,  the  first  thing  is  to  take  an 
inventory  of  the  contents  of  your  own  mind.  How 
does  the  question  strike  you  as  a  citizen?  What 
preconceived  notions  have  you  regarding  it?  Have 
you  proof  for  opinions  already  formed?  How 
does  the  question  arise  as  a  subject  for  discussion? 
What  is  the  meaning  of  the  proposition?  What 
are  the  issues  raised?  And  what  lines  of  proof 
are  necessary  in  order  to  establish  the  affirmative 
or  the  negative  side?  In  other  words,  first  of  all 
analyze  the  question  and  your  opinion  and  knowl- 
edge of  it.  Senator  Albert  J.  Beveridge,  in  an 
article  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post  of  October 
5,  1900,  writes  as  follows: 

The  method  commonly  employed  in  preparing  speeches 
is  incorrect.  That  method  is  to  read  all  the  books  one 
can  get  on  the  subject,  take  all  the  opinions  that  can  be 
procured,  make  exhaustive  notes,  and  then  write  the 
speech.  Such  a  speech  is  nothing  but  a  compilation. 
It  is  merely  an  arrangement  of  second-hand  thought  and 
observation  and  of  other  people's  ideas.  It  never  has 
the  power  of  living  and  original  thinking. 

The  true  way  is  to  take  the  elements  of  the  problem 
in  hand  and,  without  consulting  a  book  or  an  opinion, 
reason  out  from  the  very  elements  of  the  problem  itself 
your  solution  of  it,  and  then  prepare  your  speech. 

After  this  read,  read,  read,  comprehensively,  omniv- 
orously,  in  order  to  see  whether  your  original  solution 
was  not  exploded  a  hundred  years  ago — aye,  or  a  thou- 
sand; and  also,  to  fortify  and  make  accurate  your  own 


84  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

thought.  Read  Matthew  Arnold  on  Literature  and 
Dogma  and  you  will  discover  why  it  is  necessary  for 
you  to  read  exhaustively  on  any  subject  about  which 
you  would  think  or  write  or  speak.  But,  as  you  value 
your  independence  of  mind — yes,  even  your  vigor  of 
mind — do  not  read  other  men's  opinions  upon  the  sub- 
ject before  you  have  clearly  thought  out  your  own  con- 
clusions from  the  premises  of  the  elemental  facts. 

2.  The  necessity  of  studying  both  sides  of  the 
question  will  be  shown  more  fully  in  succeeding 
chapters  dealing  with  direct  argument  and  refuta- 
tion. The  debater  must  know  the  strong  and  weak 
places  in  both  the  affirmative  and  negative  sides; 
and  he  cannot  know  the  weak  places  in  his  own  ar- 
gument until  he  knows  what  can  be  said  against  it. 
The  beginner  in  argumentation  is  very  apt  to  neg- 
lect the  study  of  the  other  side;  not  by  deliberately 
avoiding  it,  perhaps,  but  by  seeking  for  only  such 
material  as  will  tend  to  confirm  the  side  of  the 
question  that  he  wishes  to  establish.  On  the  im- 
portance of  studying  the  opposing  side  of  a  case,  a 
great  lawyer  is  said  to  have  remarked,  "If  I  have 
time  to  study  only  one  side  of  a  question,  I  study 
that  of  my  adversary." 

Not  only  should  one  read  arguments  on  both 
sides  of  a  question,  he  should  aim  to  get  a  com- 
prehensive grasp  of  the  whole  field  of  the  discus- 
sion, to  master  the  general  situation  or  general 
principles  involved  before  taking  up  the  details  of 
the  issues  raised  in  a  particular  question.  The 
search  for  material  should  be  pursued  in  the  fol- 
lowing order:  (i)  Books  and  periodicals  that  deal 


EVIDENCE  85 

with  the  question  generally;  (2)  magazine  articles 
or  pamphlets  bearing  on  the  particular  question, 
and  (3)  newspapers  and  reports — if  the  question 
is  one  in  current  discussion — for  details  as  to  evi- 
dence. 

Generally  speaking,  four  classes  of  material  will 
be  gathered  from  reading:  (i)  Simple  facts;  that 
is,  facts  not  disputed  by  the  opposing  side,  but 
which,  as  a  groundwork  for  your  argument,  it  is 
necessary  the  hearers  should  know.  As  to  such 
facts,  then,  the  main  work  is  to  get  a  clear  and 
orderly  statement  for  use  as  the  basis  of  your  proof. 
(2)  Facts  in  dispute,  whose  value  will  depend  upon 
the  source,  and  whose  acceptance  by  the  hearers 
will  depend  upon  the  skill  with  which  you  show 
that  the  source  of  your  information  is  reliable. 
In  other  words,  all  the  tests  of  evidence,  of  witnesses, 
and  of  the  argument  from  authority,  will  needs 
be  brought  to  bear.  (3)  The  arguments  of  others 
opposed  to  you.  Such  arguments  should  be  care- 
fully analyzed,  and  noted  for  future  refutation. 
(4)  The  arguments  of  others  in  your  favor.  This 
class  demands  the  greatest  care  in  its  use.  The 
arguments  supporting  your  side  should  first  be 
examined  critically,  to  see  if  they  are  tenable  and 
logical.  Then,  if  accepted,  adopt  the  substance, 
if  you  choose,  but  not  the  form.  Do  not  borrow 
en  masse,  or  even  paraphrase.  Such  a  method  is 
not  only  dishonest  (unless  given  as  quoted  matter), 
but  ineffective:  the  stamp  of  the  speaker's  in- 
dividuality is  lacking.  In  using  the  arguments  of 
others,  then,  avoid  compilation  and  aim  for  origi- 
•7 


86  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

nality;  pass  the  matter  through  the  crucible  of 
your  own  mind  and  give  it  a  new  meaning, 
mold  it  into  new  forms  and  stamp  it  with  your 
individual  expression  —  in  short,  make  it  your 
own. 

The  preliminary  reading  for  gathering  evidence, 
therefore,  should  be  (i)  wide,  so  that  the  whole 
question,  pro  and  con,  is  covered;  (2)  thorough, 
so  that  nothing  essential  is  neglected;  and  (3) 
thoughtful,  so  that  the  matter  is  not  swallowed 
whole,  but  mentally  assimilated. 

SOURCES  FOR  MATERIAL. — As  soon  as  a  subject 
has  been  assigned  or  selected,  the  first  question 
that  a  student  is  prone  to  ask  the  instructor  is, 
"Where  can  I  find  material  on  this  subject?"  The 
answer  to  this  question  cannot  be  determined  satis- 
factorily without  knowing  the  nature  of  the  ques- 
tion under  consideration  and  the  resources  at  hand 
upon  which  the  debater  may  draw.  A  few  sug- 
gestions may  be  helpful. 

First  of  all  the  student  must  search  his  own 
mind  and  take  an  inventory  of  what  he  finds 
there  on  the  subject.  He  often  has  stored  away 
much  material  gained  through  observation  and 
experience  that  will  be  very  helpful.  Then,  in  the 
second  place,  he  should  determine  what  books 
and  periodicals  that  are  accessible  to  him  bear 
on  the  question;  and  lastly,  secure  whatever  ad- 
ditional information  he  can  from  any  or  all  of  the 
following  sources: 

i .  Personal  Interviews. — On  questions  of  local  im- 
port, the  debater  should  interview  men  and  women 


EVIDENCE  87 

in  his  community  who  are  qualified  to  speak  au- 
thoritatively upon  the  question.  Most  citizens  are 
glad  to  aid  in  this  manner,  and  the  information 
and  ideas  thereby  secured  offer  a  source  for  ma- 
terial that  is  often  neglected. 

2.  Personal  Letters. — Letters  to  persons  of  more 
than  local  repute  offer  a  fruitful  field  for  informa- 
tion.    And  men  of  national  reputation  seldom  re- 
fuse an  opinion  upon  subjects  upon  which  they 
are  an   authority.     The  presidents  of  state  and 
national  federations  and  associations,  such  as  the 
American   Bar  Association;   American   Federation 
of    Labor,    National    Manufacturers    Association, 
National   Brewers   Association,    National   Woman 
Suffrage  Association,  etc.,  are  very  generous  with 
their    information.     Letters    addressed    to    them 
should  be  brief,  specific,  and  definite.     It  is  a  good 
plan  to  number   your  questions  and   have  them 
so  framed  that  they  can  be  answered  by  ''yes" 
or    "no."      A    self  -  addressed    stamped    envelope 
should    always   be   inclosed.     It   is   also   a   good 
policy  to   state   the  purpose  for  which   you   de- 
sire   the    information;    for    certain    organizations 
are    anxious    to    have    their    point    of  view    pre- 
sented   to   the   public   upon   occasions    of   public 
discussion. 

3.  Books. — Consult  such  books  that  you  think 
may  treat  either  directly  or  remotely  on  the  sub- 
ject, as  indicated  by  the  table  of  contents.    An  en- 
cyclopedia is  helpful  in  starting  the  investigation 
of  a  question.    Bliss's  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform 
is  especially  valuable  on  all  social  and  economic 


88  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

questions.     Various    "year   books"    give    reliable 
statistics  on  nearly  any  subject. 

4.  Periodicals. — These  offer  a  very  satisfactory 
source  on  any  subject  that  is  likely  to  be  debated. 
Consult    the   Reader's    Guide,  Poole's  Index,    and 
Annual  Library  Index.     These  will  be  found  in  any 
up-to-date  library.     In  them  you  will  find  refer- 
ences to  the  important  magazine  articles  that  have 
been  written  on  the  subject.     When  you  read  an 
article  in  one  of  the  magazines  be  sure  to  place 
in  your  note-book  the  name  of  the  magazine,  the 
number  of  the  volume,  and  the  page,  for  very  likely 
you  will  want  to  refer  to  it  again. 

5.  Government  documents. — Numerous  pamphlets 
and  bulletins  have  been  prepared  on  various  sub- 
jects,  and  can  often  be  secured  for  the  asking. 
The   various  departments  at  Washington,  D.  C., 
usually  have  these  for  distribution.     Thus,  if  you 
want  something  on  agriculture,  send  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture,  Washington,  D.  C.,  stating  as 
definitely  as  you  can  the  subject  on  which  you  de- 
sire information.     The  Monthly  Catalogue,  listing 
all  the  publications  of  the  United  States,  is  the  best 
source  for  information  on  recent  government  pub- 
lications.    The  Congressional  Record  is  often  avail- 
able, and  gives  the  speeches  made  in  Congress  on 
the  various  bills  which  have  come  up  for  discussion. 
Then   there  are   the  reports  of   the  various  com- 
missioners, such  as  the  Commissioner  of  Education, 
Interstate  Commerce,  Industrial  Commission,  Cen- 
sus Reports,  etc. 

6.  Special  Information. — A  number  of  books  have 


EVIDENCE  89 

recently  been  edited  which  are  of  direct  aid  to  the 
student.  These  deal  with  questions  for  debate  from 
the  debater's  viewpoint.  The  following  deserve 
special  mention:  Ringwalt  and  Brooking's  Briefs 
for  Debate,  Shurter  and  Taylor's  One  Hundred  Ques- 
tions Debated,  Nichol's  Intercollegiate  Debates,  Craig's 
Pros  and  Cons,  and  Ringwalt 's  Briefs  on  Public 
Questions  and  American  Public  Questions.  There 
are,  also,  many  publishing  houses  that  make  a 
specialty  in  supplying  debate  material,  such  as 
The  Wilson  Company,  White  Plains,  New  York, 
and  Minneapolis,  Minnesota.  The  extension  de- 
partments of  most  State  universities  have  loan 
material  on  many  public  questions. 

For  further  information  on  source  material  for 
debate,  see  the  Bibliography  in  Appendix  IV  of 
this  volume. 

CLASSIFICATION. — Rhetoricians  and  others  give 
various  methods  as  to  collecting  and  arranging  ma- 
terials for  an  essay  or  a  speech.  Individuals  may 
use  different  methods,  but  the  point  is,  some 
method  is  necessary.  The  following  plan  of  pro- 
cedure is  recommended.  Make  a  tentative  outline 
of  your  argument;  then  read  for  amplification; 
then  revise  the  outline,  if  found  desirable,  and 
fit  the  material  obtained  from  reading  into  such 
outline.  The  details  of  an  outline  for  a  debate  are 
treated  in  the  next  chapter,  so  suffice  it  to  say  here 
that  the  outline  desired  at  this  point  should  be  as 
orderly  and  logical  as  possible.  The  main  head- 
ings might  run  something  as  follows:  (i)  The 
Facts  in  the  Case;  (2)  Arguments  for  the  Affirma- 


90  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

tive;  (3)  Arguments  for  the  Negative.  Then 
under  each  of  these  main  headings  would  be 
grouped  appropriate  subheadings.  At  the  outset, 
it  may  be,  especially  if  the  subject  is  a  familiar  one, 
or  at  any  rate  before  the  reading  will  have  pro- 
ceeded far,  the  main  issues  in  the  question  will 
loom  up.  These  will  naturally  constitute  the  main 
subheadings  under  either  (2)  or  (3)  above.  As  the 
reading  proceeds,  the  matter  finds  ready  classi- 
fication under  these  various  headings,  the  outline 
being  expanded  or  otherwise  changed  to  admit  of 
new  matter. 

Some  system  in  taking  notes  should  be  adopted. 
Memoranda  of  matter  needs  be  made,  for  no  one 
can  well  carry  in  memory  all  the  results  of  read- 
ing. But  what  a  jumble  many  students'  " notes" 
are!  If  one  crowds  into  a  note-book,  in  helter- 
skelter  fashion,  the  information  and  points  he 
gleans  from  reading,  wholly  unrelated  matter  re- 
corded in  an  unrelated  manner,  such  notes  are 
hardly  usable,  or  at  the  best  they  represent  poor 
economy  of  time.  An  old  Latin  maxim  holds  that 
"a  large  part  of  education  is  to  know  where  you 
may  find  anything."  Some  sort  of  classification 
should  accompany  the  note-taking.  The  best  plan 
is  to  make  the  notes  on  cards  or  slips  of  paper  of 
uniform  size,  each  labeled  with  a  heading  corre- 
sponding to  the  outline,  which  shows  the  point  on 
which  the  note  bears,  new  headings  being  added 
in  the  outline  as  new  ideas  occur.  After  the  notes 
are  finished,  assort  them  and  put  together  all 
those  bearing  on  a  particular  point.  Under  such 


EVIDENCE  91 

a  plan  as  this,  it  will  be  seen,  the  outline  and 
the  notes  mutually  react  upon  and  aid  one  an- 
other. 

REBUTTAL  CARDS. — One  of  the  most  essential 
things  for  a  debater  to  do  is  to  compile  an  adequate 
assortment  of  rebuttal  cards.  These  cards  need 
not  vary  materially  from  those  suggested  for 
original  note-taking.  Every  argument  that  is 
likely  to  be  advanced  by  the  opposition  must  be 
anticipated  and  an  appropriate  card  prepared  that 
will  serve  as  a  basis  for  a  reply.  Winning  or  losing 
a  debate  often  depends  on  the  relative  readiness 
in  rejoinder  on  the  part  of  the  respective  teams. 
When  the  debate  is  on  you  have  no  time  to  search 
for  material;  all  your  time  and  attention  must  be 
given  to  the  man  on  the  floor.  All  your  rebuttal 
material  must  be  in  readiness,  and  that  in  the  most 
available  form  possible.  The  following  cards  were 
prepared  on  the  negative  side  in  a  debate  on  the 
question:  Resolved,  that  Texas  should  have  an 
educational  test  for  suffrage. 


Education  in  Suffrage  C.  W.  Elliot 


Suffrage  is  in  itself  an  education. 
Good  citizenship  and  interest  in  gov- 
ernment affairs  can  be  encouraged 
only  by  the  use  of  the  suffrage  fran- 
chise. These  methods  are  what  our 
nation  shows  to  the  world. 


America's  Contribution  to  Civilization,  p.  21 


92  HOW    TO    DEBATE 


Manhood  Suffrage         Thomas  Jefferson 


This  term  implies  suffrage  given  to 
every  man  who  is  neither  physically 
nor  mentally  weak;  it  is  generally 
conceded  that  the  male  reaches  man- 
hood at  the  age  of  twenty-one. 


His  Speeches  Before  Congress,  p.  333. 


People's  Rule  Hon.  W.  J.  Bryan 


When  you  qualify  voters  by  property 
or  educational  qualifications,  you 
adopt  class  distinction ;  you  no  longer 
have  true  manhood  suffrage  and 
"rule  by  the  people." 


Speeches,  Address  at  Nashville.  Vol.  I,  p.  226 


Standard  of  Our  Electorate.  New  York  Com. 


Texas  ranks  among  the  first  seven 
States  in  herelection  laws  and  working 
electorate,  ranking  on  efficiency  and 
legitimacy  of  voter. 


Census  on  National  Election  Laws.  Vol.  I,  p.  46 1 


On  the  first  line  comes  the  title,  beginning  with 
the  important  word;  next  the  author.  Then  in 
the  body  give  the  evidence.  On  the  last  line  place 


EVIDENCE  93 

the  title  of  the  book  or  magazine,  volume  and 
page. 

These  cards  should  be  alphabetically  arranged 
according  to  title,  and  conveniently  arranged  in  a 
small  box.  There  should  be  dozens  of  these  cards. 
In  a  recent  intercollegiate  debate,  one  of  the  speakers 
compiled  over  two  hundred.  It  is  a  good  plan 
to  let  the  chief  speaker  on  each  side  handle  all  the 
cards  when  the  debate  is  in  progress.  The  wisdom 
of  this  is  obvious.  As  soon  as  the  opposition  ad- 
vances a  point  which  you  desire  to  refute,  and  for 
which  you  have  a  card,  pick  out  this  card  and  lay 
it  down  on  the  table  before  you.  Continue  this 
throughout  the  debate.  A  certain  number  should 
be  given  to  your  colleague  for  refutation.  Group 
these  cards  in  the  order  you  desire  to  use  them  in 
your  speech.  While  on  the  floor  keep  these  cards 
in  your  hand;  do  not  lay  them  on  the  table.  A 
glance  at  a  card  while  you  are  speaking  will  usually 
be  sufficient,  as  you  are  supposed  to  be  familiar 
with  the  contents  of  each  card.  Should  a  question 
arise  relative  to  your  evidence,  you  have  the  author 
and  exact  source — volume  and  page — noted  on  the 
card. 

In  preparing  these  rebuttal  cards  the  following 
are  points  to  be  observed: — 

1.  Answer  only  one  point  on  each  card. 

2.  Let  your  heading  begin  with  the  essential 
word  in  the  argument. 

3.  When  using  a  quotation,  be  sure  to  quote 
e  ocactly. 

4.  Write  only  on  one  side  of  the  card, 


94  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

5.  Always  give  the  source  of  your  evidence — • 
author,  title  of  book  or  magazine,  volume  and 
page. 

EXERCISES 

1.  Discuss  with  the  class  different  kinds  of  evidence  gath- 
ered by  the  students  from  current  magazines  and  newspapers. 

2.  Give  a  case  from  real  life  or  from  fiction,  in  which  a 
fact  was  established  by  circumstantial  evidence. 

3.  Let  each  student  bring  to  the  class  an  example  of  testi- 
mony from  authority.     Apply  to  these,  in  the  class,  the  dif- 
ferent tests  of  authority. 

4.  Cite  a  case  where  in  your  judgment  the  direct  evidence 
deceived  you. 

5.  Secure  from  the  daily  papers  two  examples  where  statis- 
tics are  used  as  evidence. 

6.  Name  two  subjects  on  which  you  could  submit  statistics 
as  evidence,  and  state  the  source  from  which  you  would  draw 
them. 

7.  Name  two  subjects  on  which  you  could  speak  with  some 
authority,  and  explain  why  your  testimony  on  these  subjects 
should  carry  weight. 

8.  Give  an  original  example  of  each  of  the  four  cases  of 
testimony  of  special  value. 

9.  In  Everybody's,  Vol.  XVII,  page  427,  Roosevelt  is  au- 
thority for  the  following  statement: 

"  In  one  story  a  wolf  is  portrayed  as  guiding  home  some  lost 
children,  in  a  spirit  of  thoughtful  kindness;  let  the  over- 
trustful  individual  who  has  girded  up  his  loins  to  believe  this, 
think  of  the  way  he  would  believe  the  statement  of  some  small 
farmer's  boy  that,  when  lost,  he  was  guided  home  by  a  'coon, 
a  'possum,  or  a  woodchuck."  What  violation  as  to  the  nature 
of  evidence  is  here  implied? 

10.  Let  the  members  of  the  class  point  out  the  strength  or- 
weakness  of  the  evidence  contained  in  the  following  extracts: 

(a)    "All  the  most  reliable  evidence  is  proof  that  Ger- 
many never  was  more  sane,  nor  more  justified  in 


EVIDENCE  95 

undertaking  a  defensive  war.  It  was  forced  upon  her 
by  the  machinations  of  Great  Britain,  France,  and 
Russia. 

"While  Emperor  William  was  negotiating  for  peace 
with  the  Czar,  the  latter  was  mobilizing  his  troops 
and  they  were  ordered  to  the  German-Russian 
frontier.  Also,  while  the  German  Emperor  was 
having  ' conversations'  with  England  the  French 
sent  flyers  across  the  border,  French  officers  were 
crowding  into  Belgium,  French  troops  had  attacked 
German  cities  near  the  border.  Belgium  thus  had 
violated  neutrality  before  Germany  offered  to  pay 
them  indemnity  should  they  allow  German  troops 
to  enter  Belgium."  (Extract  from  a  letter  by  a  German- 
American  to  "Harper's  Weekly"  January  i,  ipij.) 
(6)  "First,  I  desire  to  state,  as  I  have  repeatedly  here- 
tofore stated  to  the  Senate  and  to  the  country,  that 
I  am  not  and  never  have  been  a  polygamist.  I  have 
never  had  but  one  wife,  and  she  is  my  present  wife. 
"There  has  been  a  more  or  less  prevalent  opinion 
that  the  doctrine  of  polygamy  was  obligatory  upon 
the  members  of  the  Mormon  Church,  whereas,  in 
truth  and  fact,  no  such  obligatory  doctrine  has  ever 
existed.  The  revelation  concerning  polygamy,  as 
originally  made,  and  as  always  interpreted,  is  per- 
missible, and  not  mandatory.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
only  a  small  percentage  of  the  adherents  of  that 
faith  have  ever  been  polygamists.  The  vast  majority 
of  the  adult  members  of  the  Church,  from  its  founda- 
tion to  the  present  time,  have  been  monogamists. 
"The  Mormon  people,  however,  regarded  this  doc- 
trine— although  permissible  in  character — as  part  of 
their  religious  faith,  and  when  the  law  was  passed 
denouncing  its  practice,  the  execution  of  the  law  was 
resisted  on  the  ground  that  it  was  unconstitutional, 
as  being  an  interference  with  their  religious  liberty. 
Appeals  were  taken  to  the  highest  courts  of  the  land, 
every  phase  of  the  subject  was  tested  in  the  courts, 


96  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

and  the  law  was  upheld.  Then  the  Church  adopted 
the  manifesto  against  polygamy,  which  was  ratified 
by  the  general  conference  of  the  people,  and  there- 
upon the  practice  of  polygamy  for  the  future  was 
abandoned."  (From  a  speech  by  Senator  Reed  Smoot 
of  Utah,  in  the  United  States  Senate,  February  19, 
1907.) 

(c)  "No  land  in  America  surpasses  in  fertility  the  plains 
and  valleys  of  Luzon.  Rice  and  coffee,  sugar  and 
cocoanuts,  hemp  and  tobacco,  and  many  products 
of  the  temperate  as  well  as  the  tropic  zone  grow  in 
various  sections  of  the  archipelago.  I  have  seen 
hundreds  of  bushels  of  Indian  corn  lying  in  a  road 
fringed  with  banana-trees.  The  forests  of  Negros, 
Mindanao,  Mindora,  Paluan,  and  parts  of  Luzon  are 
invaluable  and  intact.  The  wood  of  the  Philippines 
can  supply  the  furniture  of  the  world  for  a  century 
to  come.  At  Cebu  the  best-informed  man  in  the 
island  told  me  that  forty  miles  of  Cebu's  mountain 
chain  are  practically  mountains  of  coal.  Pablo  Majia, 
one  of  the  most  reliable  men  on  the  islands,  con- 
firmed the  statement.  Some  declare  that  the  coal 
is  only  lignite;  but  ship  captains  who  have  used  it 
told  me  that  it  is  better  steamer  fuel  than  the  best 
coal  of  Japan.  I  have  a  nugget  of  pure  gold  picked 
up  in  its  present  form  on  the  banks  of  a  Philippine 
creek.  I  have  gold  dust  washed  out  by  crude  proc- 
esses of  careless  natives  from  the  sands  of  a  Philip- 
pine stream.  Both  indicate  great  deposits  at  the 
source  from  which  they  come.  In  one  of  the  islands 
great  deposits  of  copper  exist  untouched.  The  min- 
eral wealth  of  this  empire  of  the  ocean  will  one  day 
surprise  the  world.  I  base  this  statement  partly  on 
personal  observation,  but  chiefly  on  the  testimony  of 
foreign  merchants  in  the  Philippines,  who  have  prac- 
tically investigated  the  subject,  and  upon  the  unani- 
mous opinion  of  natives  and  priests.  And  the 
mineral  wealth  is  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  agricul- 


EVIDENCE  97 

tural  wealth  of  these  islands.  These  conclusions  were 
forced  upon  me  by  observing  the  people  in  all  walks 
of  life  in  the  different  islands,  and  by  conversations 
with  foreign  merchants,  priests,  mestizos,  pure  Fili- 
pinos, and  every  variety  of  mind,  character  and  opin- 
ion from  San  Fernando,  in  Luzon,  on  down  through 
the  entire  archipelago  to  the  interior  of  Sulu.  These 
conversations  were  had  informally  at  dinner-tables, 
on  journeys,  and  the  like,  and  always  under  conditions 
favorable  to  entire  frankness  and  unreserve.  Their 
chief  value  is  that  they  are  the  real  opinions  of  their 
authors  and  not  prepared  and  guarded  statements." 
(From  a  speech  by  Senator  Albert  J.  Beveridge  in  the 
United  States  Senate,  January  9,  IQOO.) 

(d)  "In  no  country  perhaps  in  the  world  is  the  law  so 
general  a  study.    The  profession  itself  is  numerous 
and  powerful;  and  in  most  provinces  it  takes  the  lead. 
The  greater  number  of  the  deputies  sent  to  Congress 
were  lawyers.     But  all  who  read — and  most  do  read — 
endeavor  to  obtain  some  smattering  in  that  science. 
I  have  been  told  by  an  eminent  bookseller,  that  in 
no  branch  of  his  business,  after  tracts  of  popular  de- 
votion, were  so  many  books  as  those  on  the  law  ex- 
ported to  the  Plantations.    The  Colonists  have  now 
fallen  into  the  way  of  printing  them  for  their  own 
use.     I  hear  that  they  have  sold  nearly  as  many  of 
Blackstone's  Commentaries  in  America  as  in  England. 
General  Gage  marks  out  this  disposition  very  partic- 
ularly in  a  letter  on  your  table.    He  states  that  all 
the  people  in  his  government  are  lawyers,  or  smatterers 
in  law;  and  that  in  Boston  they  have  been  enabled,  by 
successful  chicane,  wholly  to  evade  many  parts  of 
one   of   your   capital   penal   constitutions."     (From 
Burke1  s  Speech  on  "Conciliation") 

(e)  "I  am  a  blacksmith  in  the  town  of  Catskill,  New 
York.     While  overheated  at  my  forge,  I  was  exposed 
to  a  draught  and  was  taken  down  with  inflammatory 
rheumatism,    For  three  weeks    the    doctors    were 


98  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

unable  to  relieve  me,  but  two  bottles  of  your  liniment 
effected  a  cure."     (John  Smith.) 

(f)  "It  is  evident  that  the  climate  of  Virginia  is  changed. 
The  old  inhabitants  here  tell  me  that  they  remem- 
ber when  snow  lay  on  the  ground  four  months  every 
year,  and  they  rode  in  sleighs.  Now  it  is  rare  that 
we  get  enough  snow  to  have  a  sleigh-ride.  It  is  ap- 
parent that  the  climate  of  Virginia  has  changed  since 
1607,  when  the  settlers  came  into  Jamestown." 
(From  the  diary  of  Thomas  Jefferson.) 


V 

ARGUMENTS — CONSTRUCTIVE 

A >  we  have  seen,  facts  are  necessary  in  debate, 
but  this  is  not  all.  The  debater  must  learn 
to  use  his  facts,  to  reason  with  and  from  them — a 
thing  that  many  erudite  men  never  do  learn.  That 
is,  a  given  proposition  is  to  be  established  or  over- 
thrown "by  a  process  of  reasoning  from  facts 
closely  related  to  the  facts  in  issue."  Hence  the 
efforts  of  writers  on  argumentation,  since  the  days 
of  Aristotle,  to  classify  the  operations  of  the  rea- 
soning faculties.  Obviously,  any  attempted  classi- 
fication has  its  difficulties  and  limitations.  One 
process  of  reasoning  easily  runs  into  another;  a 
given  process  may  be  one  kind  of  argument,  or 
another,  depending  upon  the  point  of  view;  and 
processes  of  reasoning  are  so  complex  that  no  hard 
and  fast  line  can  be  drawn  which  will  enable  us 
to  pigeonhole  arguments  into  mutually  exclusive 
kinds.  However,  the  classification  itself  is  of  no 
great  importance.  The  advantage  in  some  sort 
of  a  classification  lies  in  the  opportunity  it  affords 
of  studying  the  more  common  forms  of  reasoning 
by  themselves,  and  more  especially  the  opportunity 
it  affords  of  learning  what  it  is  in  a  given  argument 


ioo  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

that  makes  it  strong  or  weak.  To  that  end,  let  us 
look  at  some  of  the  principal  kinds  of  arguments 
from  the  viewpoint  of  the  debater. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  Proof  includes  both 
Evidence  and  Argument,  and  that  the  presentation 
of  evidence  alone  is  all  that  is  sometimes  needed 
to  convince  the  mind  of  the  truth  or  falsity  of  a 
proposition.  However,  most  evidence  is  used  for 
the  purpose  of  establishing  new  truths  through  the 
process  of  reasoning.  Again,  there  are  certain 
propositions  that  are  self-evident, — axioms,  the 
mathematicians  call  them,  or  assumptions,  as  they 
are  spoken  of  by  logicians.  Assumptions,  as  we 
have  seen,  are  propositions  accepted  as  true  with- 
out proof.  Therefore,  with  these  two  known 
factors — evidence  and  assumptions — as  a  basis,  we 
may  infer  by  a  process  of  reasoning  what  we 
desire  to  know. 

Arguments  may  be  classified  into  two  main  di- 
visions— Constructive  proof  and  Refutation.  When 
a  speaker  states  and  supports  his  own  contention, 
this  is  Constructive  proof;  when  he  meets  objec- 
tions to  his  argument,  it  is  Refutation.  Construc- 
tive argument  may  be  either  (i)  direct  or  (2) 
indirect. 

I.     DIRECT   ARGUMENT 

We  argue  directly  when  we  accept  the  conclusions 
reached  by  others,  frequently  called  Argument  from 
Authority.  This  kind  of  argument  rests  on  the 
peculiar  force  of  one's  opinion  whose  special  knowl- 
edge of,  skill  in,  or  experience  with  a  matter  under 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  101 

discussion  enables  him  to  reach  a  true  conclusion. 
As  a  man  is  unable  to  investigate  for  himself  every 
question  that  arises,  he  must  accept  the  conclusions 
reached  by  others  in  matters  in  which  they  are 
competent  and  more  or  less  exclusive  judges.  In 
law,  if  such  conclusions  be  admitted  as  evidence 
in  the  trial  of  a  cause,  it  is  called  "expert  testi- 
mony" ;  while  the  opinions  of  judges,  in  adjudicated 
cases,  constitute  authorities  applicable  to  subse- 
quent similar  cases.  Although  * '  expert  testimony ' ' 
and  "authority"  are  clearly  distinguished  in  legal 
practice,  for  the  purposes  of  general  debating  they 
may  be  classed  together,  the  former  usually  having 
reference  to  the  testimony  of  a  specialist  on  a 
question  of  disputed  fact,  the  latter  to  those  fun- 
damental laws  and  principles  found  in  books  and 
documents,  which  are  generally  accepted  as  au- 
thoritative. Thus,  in  law  appeal  is  made  to  re- 
corded cases  and  precedents;  in  theology,  to  the 
Bible;  in  politics,  to  constitutions  and  statutes;  in 
science,  philosophy,  economics,  etc.,  to  the  works  of 
those  men  who  are  eminent  in  their  respective  fields. 
While  we  commonly  speak  of  the  use  of  authority 
as  one  of  the  kinds  of  argument,  it  is,  more  properly, 
perhaps,  a  kind  of  evidence  and  not  a  process  of 
reasoning — the  debater  asking  his  hearers  to  accept 
the  conclusions  of  another  as  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  a  given  proposition.  Now,  if  the  authority  used 
refers  to  an  elementary  principle  in  economics,  or 
law,  or  education,  ready  acceptance  may  safely 
be  assumed.  But  if  one  is  debating  a  question  of 
policy,  there  is  usually  such  a  conflict  of  authori- 
8 


102  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

ties  on  various  phases  of  the  question  that  no  one 
authority,  however  eminent,  can  be  cited  as  de- 
cisive. It  then  becomes  a  matter  of  weighing 
authorities — or  of.  comparing  witnesses;  and  all 
the  tests  of  witnesses,  previously  referred  to,  are 
to  be  applied.  Thus,  in  an  editorial  regarding  our 
permanent  retention  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  in 
the  New  York  Evening  Post,  the  value  of  an  au- 
thority quoted  is  explained  as  follows: 

Mr.  John  Foreman  is  conceded  to  be  the  foremost 
authority  on  the  Philippine  Islands.  A  resident  in  the 
archipelago  for  eleven  years;  continuously  acquainted 
with  the  natives  for  twenty;  a  frequent  visitor  to  vari- 
ous islands  of  the  group;  possessed  of  a  more  intimate 
knowledge  of  Filipino  character  and  a  larger  circle  of 
friends  and  correspondents  among  the  inhabitants  than 
any  foreigner  living;  the  historian  par  excellence  of  land 
and  people,  he  is  a  qualified  expert  to  whom  we  are 
bound  to  listen.  Certainly  there  is  no  need  to  labor  this 
point  with  Republicans.  He  is  their  own  witness,  and 
they  dare  not  try  to  discredit  them.  Professor  Wor- 
cester, of  both  Philippine  commissions,  constantly  bows 
in  his  own  book  to  the  authority  of  Foreman.  He  was 
especially  summoned  to  Paris  by  our  Peace  Com- 
missioners as  the  very  man  to  guide  their  uncertain 
steps  aright. 

TESTS    OF    ARGUMENT   FROM    AUTHORITY 

1.  Is  the  authority  competent? 

2.  Is  the  authority  unprejudiced? 

3.  Is  the  authority  recognized  by  the  hearers? 

4.  Is  the  authority  substantiated  by  others? 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  io3 

i.  Is  the  authority  competent? — Whenever  an- 
other's opinion  is  quoted  to  substantiate  a  state- 
ment, it  must  appear  that  the  person  quoted  is  an 
authority  on  the  matter  in  question  and  the  best 
that  can  be  produced.  If  the  authority  used 
amounts  to  expert  testimony,  it  must  appear  that 
the  witness  is  qualified  as  an  expert.  The  opinion 
of  a  member  of  the  Panama  Commission  on  the 
subject  of  the  interoceanic  canal  would  be  better 
authority  than  a  statement  by  a  member  of  Con- 
gress. A  Government  publication  is  better  au- 
thority than  an  irresponsible  newspaper  report. 
If  Thomas  W.  Lawson's  articles  on  ''Frenzied 
Finance"  were  quoted  as  authority  regarding  the 
unjustifiable  methods  of  the  Standard  Oil  Com- 
pany, it  might  be  urged  that  he  speaks  as  a  partisan. 
On  the  other  hand,  his  claims  to  reliability  are  thus 
defended  by  the  Detroit  News-Tribune: 

Mr.  Lawson  is  many  times  a  millionaire.  At  least 
such  is  the  common  belief  among  his  countrymen,  and 
it  is  certain  that,  in  all  the  outward  evidences  of  the 
possession  of  great  wealth,  he  keeps  pace  with  most  of 
our  modern  Croesuses.  A  man's  possessions  are  not 
necessarily  indicative  of  his  veracity;  but,  under  par- 
ticular circumstances,  they  may  become  so.  In  this 
instance  they  are  at  least  presumptive  proof  that  he  has 
not  yet  overstepped  the  bounds  of  what  he  is  prepared 
to  establish  if  haled  into  court  by  any  of  the  victims  of 
his  scathing  and  erratic  pen.  This  is  true  because  his 
financial  responsibility  is  hardly  to  be  questioned,  and 
none  of  the  money-bags  who  have  been  squirming  under 
his  lash  can  excuse  himself  from  bringing  action  against 


104  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

the  offender  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  impossible 
to  recover  anything  like  adequate  damages.  More- 
over, there  has  been  ample  temptation  to  shut  him  off 
by  proceedings  under  laws  of  criminal  libel,  if  he  has 
afforded  his  former  associates  any  hopeful  opportunity 
for  such  action.  Month  after  month  his  revelations  of 
criminal  doings,  apparently  brought  home  to  men  of 
prominence  and  standing  in  the  financial  and  social 
worlds,  have  been  permitted  to  appear  without  the 
slightest  public  effort  made  to  shut  off  this  flood  of  dis- 
closures. Up  to  date  the  general  public  has  accepted 
Mr.  Lawson's  literary  efforts  with  a  surprise  mingled 
with  incredulity.  His  continued  immunity  from  inter- 
ference or  attempted  punishment  for  statements  of  the 
most  damning  import  directed  against  supposedly  self- 
respecting  men  is  beginning  to  influence  many  to  the 
belief  that  those  whom  he  attacks  are  in  no  position 
to  reply. 

2.  Is  the  authority  unprejudiced?  —  Testimony 
from  biased  witnesses,  as  we  have  seen,  is  of  little 
value.  In  like  manner  a  statement  from  an  au- 
thority who  is  prejudiced,  though  otherwise  com- 
petent, is  unconvincing.  Any  one  who  is  in  any 
manner  interested  in  the  problem  under  discussion, 
be  it  financially,  politically,  religiously,  socially,  or 
otherwise,  may  be  sincere,  but  seldom  trustworthy. 
"A  prejudiced  man,"  says  Professor  Foster,  "sees 
evidence  in  a  distorted  way;  he  has  a  keen  eye  for 
what  supports  his  own  interests  or  opinions  and  is 
inclined  to  overlook  the  rest.  He  evades  complete 
research  when  he  has  an  instinctive  feeling  that  the 
results  will  not  be  pleasing  to  him;  he  carries  his 
arguments  only  far  enough  to  support  his  precon- 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  105 

ceived  notions,  instead  of  pushing  them  rigorously 
to  their  logical  conclusions.  His  keen  desire  that 
such  and  such  should  be  the  truth  makes  him  be- 
lieve that  it  is  the  truth." 

Statements  from  political  speeches,  from  sec- 
tarians, from  monopolists,  etc.,  when  relating  to 
matters  of  special  interest  to  them,  should  be 
accepted  com  grano  sails  unless  accompanied  by 
sound  proof. 

Burke,  in  his  speech  to  the  Electors  of  Bristol, 
showed  that  he  was  unprejudiced: 

I  confess  to  you  freely  that  the  sufferings  and  distress 
of  the  people  of  America,  in  this  cruel  war,  have  at  times 
affected  me  more  deeply  than  I  can  express.  .  .  .  Yet,  the 
Americans  are  utter  strangers  to  me;  a  nation  among 
whom  I  am  not  sure  that  I  have  a  single  acquaintance. 

3.  Is  the  authority  recognized  as  such  by  the  hearers? 
— Not  only  must  the  authority  be  good  in  itself; 
it  must  be  accepted  by  the  hearers.  The  final 
judge  as  to  its  fitness  in  a  given  case  is,  not  the 
speaker,  but  his  audience.  If  the  authority  is  not 
respected,  in  matters  of  opinion  it  is  no  authority. 
In  this  connection  it  is  well  to  note  the  decay  of  the 
argument  from  authority  in  modern  times.  It  is 
of  more  force  in  legal  discussions  than  in  general 
debate,  but  even  in  the  courts,  so  far  as  "expert 
testimony"  is  concerned,  juries  are  now  slow  to 
accept  the  opinions  of  experts  as  final.  The  rea- 
sons for  this  are  thus  set  forth  by  Wharton  in  his 
Law  of  Evidence  (page  425) : 


io6  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

When  expert  testimony  was  first  introduced  it  was  re- 
garded with  great  respect.  An  expert,  when  called  as  a 
witness,  was  viewed  as  the  representative  of  the  science 
of  which  he  was  a  professor,  giving  impartially  its  con- 
clusions. Two  conditions  have  combined  to  produce  a 
material  change  in  this  relation.  In  the  first  place,  it 
has  been  discovered  that  no  expert,  no  matter  how 
learned  and  incorrupt,  speaks  for  his  science  as  a  whole. 
Few  specialties  are  so  small  as  not  to  be  torn  by  factions ; 
and  often,  the  smaller  the  specialty  the  bitterer  and 
more  inflaming  and  distorting  are  the  animosities  by 
which  these  factions  are  possessed.  ...  In  the  second 
place,  the  retaining  of  experts,  by  a  fee  proportioned  to 
the  importance  of  their  testimony,  is  now,  in  cases  in 
which  they  are  required,  as  customary  as  is  retaining 
of  lawyers.  .  .  .  Hence  it  is  that,  apart  from  the  partisan 
temper  more  or  less  common  to  experts,  their  utterances, 
now  that  they  have  as  a  class  become  the  retained  agents 
of  parties,  have  lost  all  judicial  authority,  and  are  en- 
titled only  to  the  weight  which  a  sound  and  cautious 
criticism  would  award  to  the  testimony  itself.  In  ad- 
justing this  criticism,  a  large  allowance  must  be  made 
for  the  bias  necessarily  belonging  to  men  retained  to 
advocate  a  cause,  who  speak  not  as  to  fact,  but  as  to 
opinion;  who  are  selected  on  all  moot  questions,  either 
from  their  prior  advocacy  of,  or  from  their  readiness 
to  adopt  the  opinion  wanted.  In  such  instances  we 
are  inclined  to  adopt  the  strong  language  of  Lord  Camp- 
bell, that  "skilled  witnesses  come  with  such  a  bias  on 
their  minds  to  support  the  cause  in  which  they  are  em- 
barked that  hardly  any  weight  should  be  given  to  their 
evidence." 

In  general  debate,  also,  many  sources  once  con- 
sidered authoritative  are  no  longer  so.  The  Ro- 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  107 

man  Catholic  Church  is  no  longer  an  authority  in 
law,  nor  the  Bible  in  science.  So,  in  the  discussion 
of  unsettled  problems,  the  opinions  of  the  most 
eminent  men  are  not  authority.  They  lack  the 
force  of  general  acceptance.  If,  for  example,  one 
is  arguing  in  favor  of  Government  ownership  of 
interstate  railroads,  the  opinions  of  railway  attor- 
neys and  officials,  of  shippers,  of  members  of  Con- 
gress, of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  or 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  while  they 
may  be  used  as  corroborative  of  one's  argument, 
are  in  no  sense  authoritative.  Such  an  argument 
might  be  reduced  to  this  form:  "The  President  of 
the  United  States  favors  this  plan,  therefore  it 
should  be  adopted."  This  is  a  fallacy  frequently 
noticeable  in  student  debating.  If  the  opinions  of 
men,  however  prominent,  are  to  be  accepted  as 
proof  of  one's  case,  there  is  nothing  to  debate. 
You  cannot  win  a  debate  by  a  count  of  hands.  In 
most  questions,  the  average  American  auditor  re- 
serves the  right  of  individual  opinion  and  con- 
science, and  no  opinion  is  accepted  as  orthodox. 
The  reason  for  such  an  opinion  must  be  shown. 

On  the  other  hand,  whenever  a  question  under 
discussion  concerns  matters  wherein  authorities  ex- 
ist which  the  opposing  side  is  bound  to  recognize, 
the  use  of  the  argument  from  authority  still  has 
an  important  place.  Thus,  a  court  constitutes  an 
authority  on  points  of  law;  the  Bible,  on  religious 
questions;  and  a  book  universally  accepted  as  au- 
thoritative on  matters  within  its  particular  field 
constitutes  an  authority  in  such  field — such  as  the 


io8  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

United  States  Pharmacopaeia  regarding  drugs.  The 
main  work  of  the  debater,  in  such  cases,  is  to  show 
why  the  authority  is  good.  This  the  lawyer  has 
an  opportunity  of  doing,  in  the  case  of  an  expert, 
by  preliminary  questions.  Similarly,  the  debater 
must  explain,  in  a  few  words,  just  why  an  authority 
should  be  accepted,  and  also  just  what  the  au- 
thority states  on  the  point  in  question,  with  specific 
reference  to  the  source  of  the  quotation. 

4.  7s  the  authority  substantiated  by  others? — Too 
much  reliance  should  not  be  placed  in  one  au- 
thority. To  quote  from  one  source,  one  book,  one 
report,  one  author  is  unconvincing.  When  a  de- 
bater employs  such  a  method,  it  indicates  a  lack 
of  comprehensive  reading,  and  hence  a  limited 
knowledge  of  the  subject  under  discussion.  The 
lawyer  usually  selects  a  great  many  witnesses, 
even  though  the  point  he  desires  to  prove  be  a 
minor  one.  There  is  strength  in  numbers.  Litera- 
ture advertising  the  sale  of  certain  commodities 
has  not  one,  but  scores  of  testimonials  certifying 
to  the  merits  of  the  article.  The  majority  of  people 
prefer  to  think  and  act  as  the  community  thinks 
and  acts;  so  that  when  an  array  of  names  is  pre- 
sented indorsing  a  proposition,  it  is  made  to  ap- 
pear that  this  is  the  sentiment  of  the  entire  com- 
munity. 

Again,  when  two  or  more  investigators  or  scholars 
have,  independently,  arrived  at  the  same  con- 
clusion, the  probability  of  the  truth  of  their  con- 
clusions is  much  strengthened.  Burke  showed 
the  force  of  concurrent  testimony  when  speaking 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  109 

of  the  repeal  of  the  Law  of  1699  against  Roman 
Catholics : 

With  this  mover,  and  this  seconder,  agreed  the  whole 
House  of  Commons;  the  whole  House  of  Lords;  the  whole 
bench  of  bishops;  the  King;  the  Ministry;  the  Opposi- 
tion; all  the  distinguished  clergy  of  the  establishment; 
all  the  eminent  lights  (for  they  were  consulted)  of  the 
dissenting  churches.  ...  In  weighing  this  unanimous 
concurrence  of  whatever  the  nation  has  to  boast  of,  I 
hope  you  will  recollect,  that  all  these  concurring  parties 
do  by  no  means  love  one  another  enough  to  agree  in 
any  point  which  was  not  both  evidently  and  impor- 
tantly right.1 

In  all  questions  of  policy,  as  we  have  seen, 
argument  from  authority  is  never  conclusive  as 
to  the  question  as  a  whole,  and  should  therefore 
be  used  sparingly  by  debaters.  A  quotation  now 
and  then  may  be  desirable;  but  students  too  fre- 
quently base  their  entire  proof  on  quoting  authority. 
Show  rather  why  these  men  believe  as  they  do. 
The  arguments  that  convinced  them  will  doubtless 
carry  conviction  to  your  present  audience. 


II.    INDIRECT   ARGUMENT 

Indirect  argument  involves  the  reasoning  proc- 
ess. It  may  therefore  be  called  argument  proper, 
as  it  takes  the  known  evidence  and  from  it  derives 
the  unknown  conclusion. 

1  Burke,  Speech  at  Bristol,  September  6,  1780.  (Selected  from 
Foster's  Argumentation  and  Debating.) 


no  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

Since  the  time  of  Aristotle,  the  Greek  philosopher 
(384-322  B.C.),  who  first  discovered  and  formu- 
lated the  mental  process  of  securing  knowledge, 
two  principal  forms  of  the  reasoning  process  have 
been  generally  recognized,  Induction  and  Deduc- 
tion. 

Induction  is  "the  process  by  which  we  con- 
clude that  what  is  true  of  certain  individuals  of 
a  class  is  true  of  the  whole  class,  or  that  what  is 
true  at  certain  times  will  be  true  in  similar  circum- 
stances at  all  times."  Or,  what  is  true  of  the  less 
general  (particular)  is  true  of  the  more  general. 
And  as  it  expresses  the  relationship  of  the  part 
to  the  whole,  it  includes  the  relationship  of  one 
event  or  phenomenon  to  another.  Two  forms  are 
in  general  use,  Causal  Relationship  and  Resem- 
blance. 

a.  Causal  Relationship. — This  form  attempts  to 
establish  some  vital  relationship  between  the  evi- 
dence and  the  conclusion.  This  reasoning  is  based 
on  the  assumption  that  everything  in  the  universe 
is  related  to  every  other  thing  in  the  universe: 
Each  event  has  a  cause,  and  this  cause,  in  turn,  is 
the  result  of  a  previous  cause,  and  so  on  until  we 
reach  the  First  Cause.  We  may  also  proceed  the 
other  way,  and  consider  that  each  event  influences 
another  event  which  in  turn  will  be  the  cause  of 
another  event,  and  so  on  to  the  end  of  time.  This 
process  of  reasoning  is  very  widely  used  and  de- 
mands more  detailed  consideration: 

(i)  Cause  to  Effect. — This  process  is  often  called 
Antecedent  Probability.  It  is  the  a  priori  argu- 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  in 

ment  of  formal  logic.  We  know  the  cause  and 
try  to  find  the  effect.  The  process  consists  in 
showing  that  an  event  was  possible  or  probable, 
on  the  ground  that  there  was  sufficient  cause  to 
produce  it.  The  argument  has  its  source  in  the 
relation  which  cause  bears  to  effect,  or  motive  to 
the  cause  of  an  action.  This  method  of  proof  was 
early  formulated  and  extensively  used  by  the 
Greek  rhetoricians  and  professional  speech-writers, 
even  as  early  as  500  B.C. 

Antiphon's  strong  point  in  argument  was  the  topic  of 
General  [antecedent]  Probability.  "Is  it  likely  that 
such  and  such  a  thing  would  have  occurred?"  "Would 
this  little  man  have  been  likely  to  attack  this  big  one; 
or,  if  he  did,  would  he  not  have  known  beforehand  that 
the  presumption  would  be  against  him?"  This  topic 
of  general  probability  was  the  favorite  weapon  of  the 
Greek  rhetoricians.  Aristotle  himself  gave  it  an  im- 
portant place  in  his  great  treatise  in  which  he  formulated 
the  principles  that  had  prevailed  in  the  usage  of  the 
early  orators.1 

The  typical  example  of  this  kind  of  argument  is 
that  of  showing  motive  for  a  crime.  If  it  be 
shown  that  A  had  a  motive  to  kill  B,  the  murder  of 
B  (the  effect)  was  the  probable  result  of  such  mo- 
tive (the  cause)  acting  through  A.  In  the  White 
murder  trial,  for  example,  Webster  first  shows  a 
motive  on  the  part  of  the  prisoner: 

Joseph  Knapp  had  a  motive  to  desire  the  death  of 
Mr.  White,  and  that  motive  has  been  shown.  He  was 

1  Sears,  History  of  Oratory,  p.  40. 


ii2  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

connected  by  marriage  with  the  family  of  Mr.  White. 
His  wife  was  the  daughter  of  Mr.  Beckford,  who  was  the 
only  child  of  a  sister  of  the  deceased.  The  deceased 
was  more  than  eighty  years  old,  and  had  no  children. 
His  only  heirs  were  nephews  and  nieces.  He  was  sup- 
posed to  be  possessed  of  a  very  large  fortune,  which 
would  have  descended,  by  law,  to  his  several  nephews 
and  nieces  in  equal  shares;  or  if  there  was  a  will,  then 
according  to  the  will.  But  as  he  had  but  two  branches 
of  heirs,  the  children  of  his  brother,  Henry  White,  and 
of  Mrs.  Beckford,  each  of  these  branches,  according  to 
the  common  idea,  would  have  shared  one-half  of  the 
property.  This  popular  idea  is  not  legally  correct. 
But  it  is  common,  and  very  probably  was  entertained 
by  the  parties.  According  to  this  idea,  Mrs.  Beckford, 
on  Mr.  White's  death  without  a  will,  would  have  been 
entitled  to  one-half  of  his  ample  fortune;  and  Joseph 
Knapp  had  married  one  of  her  three  children.  There 
was  a  will,  and  this  will  gave  the  bulk  of  the  property 
to  others;  and  we  learn  from  Palmer  that  one  part  of 
the  design  was  to  destroy  the  will  before  the  murder 
was  committed.  There  had  been  a  previous  will,  and 
that  previous  will  was  known  or  believed  to  have  been 
more  favorable  than  the  other  to  the  Beckford  family. 
So  that,  by  destroying  the  last  will,  and  destroying  the 
life  of  the  testator  at  the  same  time,  either  the  first  and 
more  favorable  will  would  be  set  up,  or  the  deceased 
would  have  no  will,  which  would  be,  as  was  supposed, 
still  more  favorable.  .  .  .  When  we  look  back,  then,  at 
the  state  of  things  immediately  on  the  discovery  of  the 
murder,  we  see  that  suspicion  would  naturally  turn  at 
once,  not  to  the  heirs  at  law,  but  to  those  principally 
benefited  by  the  will.  They,  and  they  alone,  would  be 
supposed  or  seem  to  have  a  direct  object  for  wishing 
Mr.  White's  life  to  be  terminated. 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  113 

Not  only  in  the  courts,  but  in  political  discus- 
sions and  practical  affairs,  the  argument  of  ante- 
cedent probability  is  very  common.  In  general  de- 
bate it  has  a  somewhat  wider  use  than  the  proof 
which  is  based  simply  on  that  of  a  cause  for  a 
given  effect.  The  method  is  used  in  attempting 
to  show  that  a  proposition  is  probably  true,  that 
it  is  likely  to  be  true,  on  the  face  of  it.  Thus  the 
debater,  as  is  sometimes  said,  tries  to  account  for 
something  that  he  assumes  to  be  true.  In  this  sense 
the  argument  bears  a  general  resemblance  to  the 
deductive  method.  "It  is  reasonable,"  the  arguer 
contends,  "to  expect  that  this  proposition  is  true"; 
and  facts  and  principles  are  brought  forward  to 
justify  such  expectation.  As  tending  to  prove  an 
alleged  truth,  he  shows  why  it  might  be  true;  to 
support  the  adoption  of  a  proposed  policy,  he 
shows  from  antecedent  circumstances  why  it  would 
be  expedient,  or  that  it  conforms  to  some  well- 
established  principle.  This  method  is  a  powerful 
aid,  then,  in  raising  a  presumption  in  one's  favor, 
and  it  is  widely  serviceable  for  such  purpose. 

An  introductory  sentence  in  a  recent  maga- 
zine article  runs  as  follows :  "In  the  present  article 
I  shall  simply  put  down  without  much  comment 
certain  random  facts  in  the  summer  routine  of  our 
affluent  and  conspicuous  families,  trusting  that 
these  facts  will  speak  for  themselves  to  thoughtful 
people  and  create  a  preliminary  impression  that 
may  assist  my  purpose  to  presently  contrast  these 
glittering  lives  with  the  lives  of  our  tortured  and 
miserable  poor  as  we  find  them  to-day  in  the  great 


ii4  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

cities  of  America."  And  to  create  a  "preliminary 
impression"  the  argument  from  antecedent  prob- 
ability is  frequently  employed.  It  prepares  the 
way  for  direct  evidence.  Thus  skilled  trial  lawyers 
take  great  pains  in  presenting  to  the  jury  the  pre- 
liminary statement  of  facts  in  a  case.  They  know 
the  importance  of  making  the  first  impression  of 
the  case  as  strong  as  possible,  so  that  the  jurors' 
minds  are  prepared  to  receive  the  evidence  cor- 
roborative of  the  opening  statement.  The  adver- 
tisers of  patent  medicines  act  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple. By  a  description  of  the  disease  and  of  the 
remedy  offered  they  make  it  plain  why  their  medi- 
cine may  be  expected  to  effect  a  cure — and  the 
reader's  mind  is  thus  prepared  for  the  testimonies 
of  cures  that  usually  follow.  It  is  a  matter  of 
common  observation  that  predisposed  opinions 
have  such  weight  that  it  is  easy  to  convince  one 
of  that  which  he  deems  probable,  and  extremely 
difficult  to  persuade  men  to  believe  even  direct 
evidence  if  they  are  already  convinced  of  its  ante- 
cedent improbability.  Thus  there  is  a  general  ac- 
ceptance of  a  belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
and  yet,  aside  from  the  question  of  divine  revela- 
tion, such  belief  rests  solely  on  the  argument  that 
it  is  likely  to  be  true.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is 
a  general  disbelief  in  spiritualism  because,  as  is 
generally  held,  of  its  antecedent  improbability.  It 
is  not  infrequently  the  first  task  of  the  debater  to 
remove  unfavorable  impressions  that  may  exist  in 
his  hearers'  minds.  This  is  no  small  part  of  the 
work  of  the  advocate,  in  a  trial  at  law.  For  exam- 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  us 

pie,  Sargent  S.  Prentiss,  in  his  famous  plea  in  de- 
fense of  Judge  Wilkinson,  attempted  to  remove  the 
unfavorable  impression  that  may  have  arisen  from 
the  change  of  venue,  as  follows: 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  this  is  a  case  of  no  ordinary 
character,  and  possesses  no  ordinary  interest.  Three 
of  the  most  respectable  citizens  of  the  State  of  Mississippi 
stand  before  you,  indicted  for  the  crime  of  murder,  the 
highest  offense  known  to  the  laws  of  the  land.  The 
crime  is  charged  to  have  been  committed  not  in  your 
own  county,  but  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  and  there  the 
indictment  was  found.  The  defendants,  during  the  past 
winter,  applied  to  the  Legislature  for  a  change  of  venue, 
and  elected  your  county  as  the  place  at  which  they 
would  prefer  to  have  the  question  of  their  innocence  or 
guilt  investigated. 

This  course,  at  first  blush,  may  be  calculated  to  raise 
in  your  minds  some  unfavorable  impressions.  You  may 
naturally  inquire  why  it  was  taken;  why  they  did  not 
await  their  trial  in  the  county  in  which  the  offense  was 
charged  to  have  been  committed;  in  fine,  why  they  came 
here?  I  feel  it  my  duty,  before  entering  into  the  merits 
of  this  case,  to  answer  these  questions,  and  to  obviate 
such  impressions  as  I  have  alluded  to,  which,  without  ex- 
planation, might  very  naturally  exist.  In  doing  so,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  advert  briefly  to  the  history  of  the 
case.  My  clients  have  come  before  you  for  justice. 
They  have  fled  to  you,  even  as  to  the  horns  of  the  altar, 
for  protection.  It  is  not  unknown  to  you,  that  upon  the 
occurrence  of  the  events,  the  character  of  which  you 
are  about  to  try,  great  tumult  and  excitement  prevailed 
in  the  city  of  Louisville.  Passion  and  prejudice  poured 
poison  into  the  public  ear.  Popular  feeling  was  roused 
into  madness.  It  was  with  the  utmost  difficulty  that 


n6  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

the  strong  arm  of  the  constituted  authorities  wrenched 
the  victims  from  the  hands  of  an  infuriated  mob.  Even 
the  thick  walls  of  the  prison  hardly  afforded  protection 
to  the  accused.  Crouched  and  shivering  upon  the  cold 
floor  of  their  gloomy  dungeon,  they  listened  to  the  foot- 
steps of  the  gathering  crowds;  and  ever  and  anon  the 
winter  wind  that  played  melancholy  music  through  the 
rusty  gates,  was  drowned  by  the  fierce  howling  of  the 
human  wolves,  who  prowled  and  bayed  around  their 
place  of  refuge,  thirsting  for  blood.  Every  breeze  that 
swept  over  the  city  bore  away  slander  and  falsehood 
upon  its  wings.  ...  I  am  told  that  when  the  examina- 
tion took  place  before  the  magistrates,  every  bad  pas- 
sion, every  ungenerous  prejudice,  was  appealed  to.  The 
argument  was  addressed,  not  to  the  court,  but  to  the 
populace.  ...  It  was  this  course  of  conduct  and  this 
state  of  feeling  which  induced  the  change  of  venue.1 

Following  is  another  example,  different  in  kind, 
and  yet  essentially  an  a  priori  argument.  It  illus- 
trates the  close  relation  between  the  argument  of 
antecedent  probability,  as  frequently  employed, 
and  the  burden  of  proof.  Senator  Beveridge,  in 
the  article  previously  quoted  from,  combats  the 
States'  rights  doctrine  by  showing  how  changed 
conditions  render  it  now  necessary  for  the  Federal 
government  to  do  many  things  not  contemplated 
by  the  f ramers  of  our  Constitution : 

The  progress  of  nationality  and  the  decay  of  "States' 
rights"  grows  out  of  changed  conditions.  The  railroad, 
telegraph,  and  telephone  have  bound  our  people  into  a 
national  unit.  None  of  these  agencies  of  national  soli- 

1  Great  Speeches  by  Great  Lawyers,  pp.  88-91, 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  117 

darity  existed  when  the  Republic  was  founded.  We 
were  then  a  handful  of  people,  and  this  handful  separated 
by  lack  of  communication.  But  now  San  Francisco  is 
much  nearer  New  York  than  Pittsburgh  was  to  Boston 
in  the  old  days.  One  can  travel  in  luxury  from  Wash- 
ington to  Chicago  in  a  fifth  of  the  time  that  the  fathers 
could  cross  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  We  can  talk 
instantaneously  from  St.  Louis  to  Philadelphia  to-day. 
Whereas,  we  were  only  four  million  people  in  the  days 
when  States'  rights  was  in  its  greatest  vigor,  we  are  now 
eighty  millions  of  people,  and  in  half  a  century  will  be 
two  hundred  million  of  people — and  these  all  woven 
closely  together  by  the  most  perfect  facilities  of  com- 
munication the  world  has  ever  seen. 

All  this  creates  new  problems  which  the  old  theory  of 
States'  rights  never  contemplated,  and  new  necessities 
on  the  part  of  the  people  which  States'  rights  cannot 
supply.  But  the  people's  problems  must  be  solved, 
the  people's  necessities  supplied.  Each  day  makes  it 
clearer  that  only  the  nation  can  do  this.  That  is  why 
the  nation  is  doing  it.  If  the  States  could  do  that  work 
better,  nothing  could  prevent  them  from  doing  it.  It 
is  because  the  nation  is  the  only  force  equal  to  the 
daily  developing  needs  of  the  people  that  nationality 
is  developing,  and  for  no  other  reason.  In  all  of  this 
there  is  no  harm,  but  only  the  welfare  of  the  people; 
for  it  is  merely  the  people  themselves  acting  in  common 
for  their  common  good. 

After  all,  the  purpose  of  these  free  institutions  of  ours 
is  to  make  better  people.  The  reason  of  our  Govern- 
ment is  to  improve  human  conditions  and  to  make  this 
country  a  fairer  place  for  men  and  women  to  live  in. 
No  jugglery  with  mere  phrases  can  impair  this  mighty 
truth,  upon  which,  and  upon  which  alone,  the  Republic 
is  founded. 
9 


n8       HOW  TO  DEBATE 

TESTS  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  CAUSE  TO  EFFECT 

1.  Is  the  known  cause  adequate  to  produce  the 
alleged  effect? 

2.  Is  the  known  cause  not  interfered  with  by 
other  forces? 

3.  Does  past  experience  encourage  the  inference? 
Let  us  take  a  few  examples  and  apply  these  tests. 

Rain  fell  last  night,  therefore  the  roads  will  be 
too  muddy  to  go  driving.  We  have  some  of  the 
evidence — the  facts:  it  rained;  there  was  a  cer- 
tain amount;  the  condition  of  the  road  was  known 
before  the  rain,  etc.  The  fact  we  wish  to  deter- 
mine is,  what  was  the  effect  of  the  rain  on  the  roads; 
and  are  they  too  muddy  to  be  used  with  pleasure. 

We  would  first  consider  the  amount  of  the  rain- 
fall. Is  it  adequate  to  produce  the  alleged  effect? 
Secondly,  we  would  attempt  to  determine  the 
previous  condition  of  the  road,  so  as  to  determine 
whether  or  not  the  rain,  though  sufficient  in  amount, 
would  injure,  at  this  time,  the  road  in  question. 
Paved,  macadamized,  graveled  roads  would  be 
forces  that  might  keep  the  rain  from  having  its 
usual  effect.  Thirdly,  what  has  been  the  result 
of  about  the  same  amount  of  rain  on  these  roads 
in  previous  instances?  All  these  tests  must  be 
reckoned  with  in  correctly  predicting  the  effect. 

It  will  readily  be  seen  that  the  tests  above  stated 
are  destructive  of  many  so-called  arguments  from 
cause  to  effect.  Thus,  the  causal  connection,  and 
the  intervention  of  other  forces  than  the  assigned 
cause,  affect  the  probative  value  of  our  common 


ARGUMENTS  —  CONSTRUCTIVE  119 

superstitions.  To  say  that  the  moon  affects  grow- 
ing crops;  that  breaking  a  looking-glass  will  be 
followed  by  death  in  the  family;  that  Friday  and 
the  number  thirteen  are  omens  of  bad  luck,  etc.— 
all  such  inferences  fail  to  meet  the  aforementioned 
tests  of  adequacy  and  closeness  in  causal  relation- 
ship. Inferences  no  less  palpably  unsound  are 
common  in  political  discussions.  To  argue,  for 
example,  that  commercial  prosperity  or  depression 
results  from  a  given  tariff  policy  leaves  out  of  con- 
sideration so  many  other  possible  causes  that 
economists  generally  content  themselves  with  enun- 
ciating principles,  and  leave  it  to  the  politicians 
to  draw  conclusions  based  on  alleged  cause  and 
effect. 

The  argument  of  antecedent  probability,  then, 
is  mainly  preparatory  and  corroboratory.  Stand- 
ing by  itself,  it  is  not  conclusive.  Its  great  value 
lies  in  impressing  the  minds  of  the  hearers  favor- 
ably as  to  one's  argument,  and  so  preparing  them 
for  the  reception  of  further  and  more  conclusive 
proof. 

(2)  Effect  to  Cause. — This  mode  of  reasoning  has 
been  called  argument  from  "sign,"  and  is  the  a 
posteriori  method  of  Aristotle.  A  given  effect  is 
absolutely  known,  and  from  it  we  infer  a  probable 
cause — a  process  inverse  to  the  argument  from 
Cause  to  Effect.  A  certain  known  thing,  we  say, 
is  reason  for  believing  in  the  existence  of  another. 
Something  has  happened;  effects  are  pointed  out 
that  are  likely  to  have  been  produced  by  the  event 
or  act  in  question,  an  effect  being  regarded  as  the 


120  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

"sign"  of  the  cause.  If  there  is  a  red  sky  at  sun- 
set, we  infer  that  the  atmospheric  conditions  are 
such  that  fair  weather  will  follow.  When  we  see 
a  rainbow  we  conclude  that  at  that  point  the 
sun's  rays  are  falling  on  raindrops.  When  statis- 
tics are  adduced  to  show  the  beneficial  results  of  a 
given  monetary  or  tariff  policy,  we  are  reasoning 
from  effect  to  cause.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
arguments  from  sign  and  of  antecedent  probability 
are  complementary,  the  one  looking  backward,  the 
other  forward;  and  a  given  argument  in  this  class 
may  sometimes  be  termed  one  or  the  other,  depend- 
ing upon  the  point  of  view. 

The  most  familiar  examples  of  argument  from 
sign  are  found  in  criminal  trials.  As  Webster  re- 
marked in  the  White  murder  trial,  "  midnight  as- 
sassins take  no  witnesses."  "Circumstances," 
some  one  has  said,  "are  God's  detectives;  with 
their  sightless  eyes  and  voiceless  tongues  they  see 
farther  and  speak  louder  than  the  average  human 
witness."  In  one  sense,  the  argument  from  sign  is 
more  certain  proof  than  the  argument  of  antece- 
dent probability.  No  matter  how  many  reasons 
may  be  assigned  to  show  that  A  would  probably 
murder  B,  they  are  of  no  avail  unless  it  be  shown 
that  B  has  been  murdered.  Hence  the  law,  in 
capital  cases,  insists  that  the  sign  of  the  murder 
be  conclusively  shown — the  doctrine  of  corpus 
delicti.  This  having  been  shown,  all  the  facts  re- 
lating to  the  accused  person  after  the  occurrence 
of  the  crime — "circumstantial"  evidence — belong 
to  the  argument  from  sign.  As  an  example,  Web- 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  i2i 

ster  supplemented  his  argument  (previously  quoted) 
showing  the  antecedent  probability  that  Frank 
Knapp  was  one  of  the  conspirators  who  murdered 
Captain  White,  with  the  following  argument 
from  sign: 

Let  me  ask  your  attention,  then,  in  the  first  place,  to 
those  appearances,  on  the  morning  after  the  murder, 
which  have  a  tendency  to  show  that  it  was  done  in  pur- 
suance of  a  preconcerted  plan  of  operation.  What  are 
they?  A  man  was  found  murdered  in  his  bed.  No 
stranger  had  done  the  deed,  no  one  unacquainted  with 
the  house  had  done  it.  It  was  apparent  that  somebody 
within  had  opened,  and  that  somebody  without  had 
entered.  There  had  obviously  and  certainly  been  con- 
cert and  co-operation.  The  inmates  of  the  house  were 
not  alarmed  when  the  murder  was  perpetrated.  The 
assassin  had  entered  without  any  riot  or  any  violence. 
He  had  found  the  way  prepared  before  him.  The  house 
had  been  previously  opened.  The  window  was  unbarred 
from  within,  and  its  fastening  unscrewed.  There  was  a 
lock  on  the  door  of  the  chamber  in  which  Mr.  White 
slept,  but  the  key  was  gone.  It  had  been  taken  away  and 
secreted.  The  footsteps  of  the  murderer  were  visible, 
outdoors,  tending  toward  the  window.  The  plank  by 
which  he  entered  the  window  still  remained.  The  road 
he  pursued  had  been  thus  prepared  for  him.  The  victim 
was  slain,  and  the  murderer  had  escaped.  Everything 
indicated  that  somebody  within  had  co-operated  with 
somebody  without.  Everything  proclaimed  that  some 
of  the  inmates,  or  somebody  having  access  to  the  house, 
had  had  a  hand  in  the  murder.  On  the  face  of  the  cir- 
cumstances, it  was  apparent,  therefore,  that  this  was  a 
premeditated,  concerted  murder;  that  there  had  been 
a  conspiracy  to  commit  it. 


122  HOW    TO    DEBATE" 

The  arguments  of  sign  and  antecedent  proba- 
bility stand  or  fall  together.  Since  both  depend 
upon  causal  relationship,  they  are  both  measured 
by  the  same  tests.  Whenever  the  two  arguments 
can  be  linked  together — as  is  done  by  Webster  in 
the  two  previous  extracts — a  strong  argument  re- 
sults. But  the  argument  from  sign,  standing  by 
itself,  is  rarely  conclusive,  and  the  danger  of  de- 
pending upon  circumstantial  evidence  alone  has 
passed  into  a  proverb.  You  may  pile  sign  upon 
sign  to  show  that  A  murdered  B,  but  if  A  can 
prove  an  alibi,  all  the  signs  fail.  An  example 
showing  the  danger  in  sign-inferences  will  be  seen 
in  the  following  story  that  recently  went  the  round 
of  the  newspapers: 

During  the  college  days  of  ex-Mayor  Bessom  of  Lynn 
he  had  two  of  the  professors  of  the  college  as  guests  at  a 
hunting-camp  in  the  Maine  woods.  When  they  entered 
the  camp  their  attention  was  attracted  to  the  unusual 
position  of  the  stove,  which  was  set  on  posts  about  four 
feet  high. 

One  of  the  professors  began  to  comment  upon  the 
knowledge  woodsmen  gain  by  observation.  "Now," 
said  he,  "this  man  has  discovered  that  the  heat  radiat- 
ing from  the  stove  strikes  the  roof,  and  the  circulation 
is  so  quickened  that  the  camp  is  warmed  in  much  less 
time  than  would  be  required  if  the  stove  was  in  its  regu- 
lar place  on  the  floor."  The  other  professor  was  of  the 
opinion  that  the  stove  was  elevated  to  be  above  the 
window  in  order  that  cool  and  pure  air  could  be  had  at 
night.  Mr.  Bessom,  being  more  practical,  contended 
that  the  stove  was  elevated  in  order  that  a  good  supply 
of  green  wood  could  be  placed  beneath  it  to  dry.  After 


ARGUMENTS  —  CONSTRUCTIVE:^ 

considerable  argument  the  guide  was  called  and  asked 
why  the  stove  was  placed  in  such  an  unusual  position. 
"Well,"  said  he,  ''when  I  brought  the  stove  up  the  river 
I  lost  most  of  the  stovepipe  overboard,  and  had  to  set 
the  stove  up  there  so  as  to  have  the  pipe  reach  through 
the  roof." 


TESTS  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  EFFECT  TO  CAUSE 

1.  Could  any  other  cause  have  produced  the 
known  effect? 

2.  Is  the  alleged  cause  adequate  to  produce  the 
known  effect? 

3.  Is  the  alleged  cause  not  interfered  with  by 
other  forces? 

To  illustrate:  It  has  been  asserted  that  the  pres- 
ent high  cost  of  land  is  the  cause  of  the  high  price 
of  food.  First,  does  any  other  cause  contribute  to 
this  high  cost  of  food?  It  will  be  clearly  seen  that 
there  are  a  number  of  economic  and  social  forces 
operating  to  effect  a  rise  in  the  price  of  food;  such 
as,  a  higher  living  standard,  increased  cost  of  labor, 
change  in  the  nature  of  the  food  raised  and  manu- 
factured, etc.  Second,  could  the  high  cost  of  land 
in  itself  cause  the  high  price  of  food?  It  doubt- 
less could  meet  this  test.  Third,  are  there  forces 
at  work  which  prevent  the  high  price  of  land  from 
increasing  the  cost  of  food?  We  must  admit  that 
there  are  many  forces  that  interfere  with  the  full 
operation  of  the  alleged  cause;  such  as,  transpor- 
tation facilities,  food  substitutes,  intensive  farm- 
ing, etc. 

In  all  questions  of  policy,  it  will  be  impossible 


i24  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

to  secure  a  causal  relationship  which  will  meet  all 
three  of  these  tests.  The  law  of  causation  is  so 
universal,  eternal,  and  positive  in  its  operation 
that  every  fact  in  the  universe  is  interrelated  with 
every  other  fact.  It  has  been  said  that  if  a  Cana- 
dian Indian  quarreled  with  his  squaw  it  would 
affect  the  price  of  furs  in  Liverpool. 

The  purpose  of  the  debater  should  be  to  get  at 
the  principal  or  basic  cause,  and  proceed  to  prove 
that  all  other  causes  are  only  contributory  or 
secondary. 

(3)  Effect  to  Effect. — This  mode  of  reasoning  is  a 
combination  of  the  arguments  from  Effect  to  Cause 
and  from  Cause  to  Effect.  We  start  from  a  known 
effect  and  reason  back  to  a  possible  cause;  from 
this  cause  we  infer  another  effect.  The  mind,  how- 
ever, does  not  take  this  circuitous  path,  but  goes 
directly  from  one  effect  to  another  effect,  and 
omits  searching  for  a  common  cause  which  acts  as 
connecting  link.  The  farmer  in  looking  at  the 
thermometer  observes  that  it  registers  below  zero; 
he  immediately  concludes  that  his  fruit  crop  is 
ruined.  The  common  cause — low  temperature — is 
not  considered.  The  process  of  reasoning  may  be 
graphically  represented  as  follows: 

Cold  weather  (Common  cause) 


Low  thermometer  (Effect)  Ruined  crops  (Effect) 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  125 

By  a  like  process,  we  listen  to  the  ticking  of  a  watch 
in  the  dark  and  conclude  that  the  hands  are  mov- 
ing. The  potential  energy  in  the  mainspring  is 
not  in  our  thoughts.  We  see  a  red  apple  and  im- 
mediately begin  eating  it.  The  redness  and  ripe- 
ness both  have  a  common  cause.  The  barometer 
"falls"  and  we  say  that  it  is  going  to  storm. 

In  a  recent  debate  it  was  argued  that  "low 
wages ' '  caused  ' ' poverty. ' '  The  opposition  showed 
that  they  were  not  related  as  cause  and  effect,  but 
as  two  effects  of  a  common  cause — inefficiency; 
and  that  statutory  increase  of  wages  would  not 
cure  poverty;  that  education  was  needed.  The 
debater  should  always  seek  for  the  common  cause 
if  it  is  likely  to  exist. 

TESTS  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  EFFECT  TO  EFFECT 

1.  Is  there  a  common  cause  for  the  two  asso- 
ciated phenomena? 

2.  Is  the  common  cause  adequate  to  produce 
each  effect? 

3.  Apply  tests  from  Effect  to  Cause  and  from 
Cause  to  Effect.     It  is  often  argued  that  a  woman 
who  votes  is  an  undesirable  wife.     Surely  the  mere 
casting  of  the  ballot  would  not  decrease  her  femi- 
nine   and    housekeeping    qualities,    nor    whatever 
other  qualities  that  make  a  woman  a  desirable  help- 
meet;   so  we  are  constrained  to  seek  a  common 
cause,  believing  that  a  woman  who  votes  and  an 
undesirable    wife    are    both    effects.     Is    there    a 
common  cause?    The  type  of  women  who  desire 


126  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

the  ballot  possess,  let  us  say,  mental  characteris- 
tics that  would  make  them  undesirable  for  lifelong 
companions.  If  true,  we  have  found  the  common 
cause  to  be  certain  mental  characteristics  which 
form  a  common  cause  for  the  two  effects  in  ques- 
tion. Second,  is  the  common  cause  adequate  to 
produce  each  effect?  There  is  room  for  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  at  this  point,  but 'if  the  original 
proposition  is  true  it  must  stand  this  test.  And 
lastly,  it  must  meet  the  tests  from  Effect  to  Cause 
and  from  Cause  to  Effect.  Let  the  student  trace 
out  this  relationship  to  his  own  satisfaction. 

4.  Association  of  Phenomena  in  ike  Past. — In  the 
argument  from  Effect  to  Effect,  it  was  pointed  out 
that  a  common  cause  existed,  though  not  evident 
in  the  mental  process.  In  Association  of  Phenom- 
ena in  the  Past,  a  common  cause  may  or  may  not 
exist.  The  two  events  may  even  bear  the  relation 
of  cause  and  effect,  but  the  relation,  if  any,  is 
unknown,  and  if  it  does  exist  it  is  so  remote  that 
the  mind  makes  no  attempt  to  discover  it.  Two 
events  have  been  observed  to  occur  at  the  same 
time  or  place,  or  are  at  least  in  some  manner 
associated  together  in  the  mind;  so  that  when  one 
of  them  is  observed  the  other  is  inferred,  not  from 
the  law  of  causation,  but  merely  from  past  experi- 
ence. Most  of  our  superstitious  beliefs  are  the 
result  of  this  process  of  association.  Some  of  them 
may  be  causally  connected,  but  the  relation  is  not 
yet  apparent,  and  again  it  may  be  mere  coincidence. 
If  you  drop  a  comb,  some  one  will  come  to  visit 
you  that  day.  If  the  groundhog  sees  his  shadow 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  127 

February  2d,  there  will  be  six  weeks  more  of  winter. 
Scientists  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
periods  of  famine  in  China  have  been  accom- 
panied by  sun  spots.  "When  it  is  evening,  ye  say, 
it  will  be  fair  weather,  for  the  sky  is  red."1  Many 
of  our  daily  inferences  are  made  by  mere  associa- 
tion of  phenomena.  Animals  "reason"  in  this 
manner.  The  cat  sees  a  mouse  and  she  springs 
upon  it.  She  acts  from  association  of  phenomena  in 
the  past.  Chickens  flock  about  the  farmer's  wife  as 
she  comes  from  the  house  with  a  pan  in  her  hands. 

The  debater  should  rarely  attempt  to  prove  his 
contention  by  mere  association  of  phenomena  in 
the  past.  It  is  a  very  low  form  of  reasoning — if, 
indeed,  any  reasoning  at  all.  It  is  unconvincing, 
and  is  presented  here  as  something  to  be  avoided 
rather  than  to  be  followed. 

b.  Resemblance,  or  Example. — This  form  of  rea- 
soning supposes  some  kind  of  resemblance  between 
two  or  more  objects  or  events.  It  is  the  argument 
of  the  observed  to  the  unobserved.  It  is  a  favorite 
argument  with  debaters.  The  two  main  divisions 
are,  (i)  Analogy  and  (2)  Generalization. 

(i)  Analogy. — "A  form  of  inference  in  which  it 
is  reasoned  that  if  two  or  more  things  agree  with 
one  another  in  one  or  more  respects  they  will 
(probably)  agree  in  yet  other  respects."2  Or,  from 
the  similarity  of  two  or  more  things  in  certain  par- 
ticulars, their  similarity  in  other  particulars  is  in- 
ferred. Thus,  the  earth  and  Mars  are  both  planets, 

1  Matthew  xvi:2.  2  Webster's  Dictionary. 


128  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

nearly  equidistant  from  the  sun,  having  similar 
distribution  of  seas  and  continents,  alike  in  condi- 
tions of  humidity,  temperature,  seasons,  day  and 
night,  etc.;  but  the  earth  also  supports  organic 
life;  hence — from  analogy — Mars  (probably)  sup- 
ports organic  life.  Similarly,  we  infer  that  what 
has  happened  in  the  past  will,  under  similar  con- 
ditions, happen  again.  If  the  past  condition  of 
one  country,  economically  or  politically,  closely 
resembles  the  present  condition  of  another,  we  may 
use  the  history  of  the  one  country  to  prove  what 
we  wish  about  the  modern  condition;  that  is,  we 
can  judge  of  the  future,  as  Patrick  Henry  said, 
only  by  the  past.  This  "argument  from  experi- 
ence," as  it  is  frequently  called,  is  more  or  less 
employed  in  debating  current  political  and  govern- 
mental questions.  When  properly  used,  the  argu- 
ment is  very  effective,  for  "substantially  the  mode 
in  which  we  learn  a  new  thing  is  by  its  being  lik- 
ened to  something  that  we  already  know."  It  has 
been  said  that  all  reasoning  consists  ultimately  in 
inferences  from  experience. 

A  favorite  and  effective  use  of  the  argument  from 
example  is  that  technically  known  as  a  fortiori  (all 
the  stronger),  which  reasons  that  if  a  certain  prin- 
ciple, say,  is  true  in  a  given  case,  much  more  is  it  true 
in  the  case  under  discussion,  wherein  the  conditions 
are  more  favorable.  Many  passages  in  Scripture  are 
put  in  the  form  of  a  fortiori  argument : 

Wherefore  if  God  so  clothe  the  grass  which  to-day  is 
and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven,  shall  He  not  much 
more  clothe  you,  O  ye  of  little  faith  ? — If  ye,  then,  being 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  129 

evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  children, 
how  much  more  shall  your  Heavenly  Father  give  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  Him. — Are  not  two  sparrows 
sold  for  a  farthing?  And  not  one  of  them  shall  fall  to 
the  ground  without  your  Father.  Fear  ye  not,  therefore, 
ye  are  of  more  value  than  many  sparrows.1 

This  has  always  been  a  favorite  argument  of 
forensic  orators.  The  following  is  an  example 
from  Erskine's  speech  in  defense  of  Lord  George 
Gordon : 

But  it  seems  that  Lord  George  ought  to  have  fore- 
seen so  great  a  multitude  could  not  be  collected  with- 
out mischief.  Gentlemen,  we  are  not  trying  whether  he 
might  or  ought  to  have  foreseen  mischief,  but  whether 
he  wickedly  and  traitorously  -preconcerted  and  designed  it. 
But  if  he  be  an  object  of  censure  for  not  foreseeing  it, 
what  shall  we  say  to  government  that  took  no  steps  to 
prevent  it,  that  issued  no  proclamation  warning  the  peo- 
ple of  the  danger  and  illegality  of  such  an  assembly  ?  If 
a  peaceable  multitude,  with  a  petition  in  their  hands,  be 
an  army,  and  if  the  noise  and  confusion  inseparable  from 
numbers,  though  without  violence  or  the  purpose  of  vio- 
lence, constitute  war,  what  shall  be  said  of  that  govern- 
ment which  remained  from  Tuesday  to  Friday,  knowing 
that  an  army  was  collecting  to  levy  war  by  public  adver- 
tisement, yet  had  not  a  single  soldier,  no,  nor  even  a 
constable,  to  protect  the  state?2 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  reasoning  from 
analogy  the  resemblance  must  always  be  an  essen- 
tial one — it  must  apply  to  the  point  under  discus- 

1  Matthew  vi:3O.  2  Goodrich,  British  Eloquence,  p.  551. 


i3o  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

sion.  The  following  illustrations  will  make  this 
clear.  We  find  many  points  of  resemblance  be- 
tween the  earth  and  the  moon,  but  we  cannot  infer 
therefrom  that  there  are  living  creatures  on  the 
moon,  since  the  moon  has  no  atmosphere,  and  we 
know  that  air  is  an  indispensable  condition  of  life. 
The  construction  of  an  argument  resembles,  in 
many  respects,  that  of  a  frame  house;  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  everything  true  of  the  house  is  true 
of  the  argument.  Again,  take  the  somewhat  com- 
mon comparison  of  a  nation  with  an  individual: 
nations,  it  is  said,  like  individuals,  have  youth, 
manhood,  the  decline  of  old  age,  and  death.  But 
the  resemblance  fails  in  the  one  essential  point — 
physical  organization.  So,  "Carlyle's  saying  that 
a  ship  could  never  be  taken  around  Cape  Horn  if 
the  crew  were  consulted  every  time  the  captain 
proposed  to  alter  his  course,  if  taken  seriously  as 
an  analogical  argument  against  representative  gov- 
ernment, is  open  to  the  objection  that  the  differ- 
ences between  a  ship  and  a  state  are  too  great  for 
any  argument  from  the  one  to  the  other  to  be  of 
value."  1 

On  the  other  hand,  there  may  be  many  points 
of  dissimilarity,  but  if  there  be  a  resemblance  in  the 
essential  particulars  the  argument  is  good  and,  es- 
pecially with  a  popular  audience,  very  effective. 
For  example:  Horses  and  generals  are  unlike  in 
themselves  and  in  their  relations  in  many  ways; 
but  Lincoln's  oft-quoted  saying,  in  reply  to  poli- 

1  Mill,  System  of  Logic,  p.  332. 


ARGUMENTS  —  CONSTRUCTIVE  131 

ticians  advising  him  to  change  generals  at  a  certain 
time  during  the  Civil  War,  that  he  deemed  it  un- 
wise to  ''swap  horses  while  crossing  a  stream," 
was  a  valid  argument  in  that  horses  bore  the  same 
relation  to  crossing  a  stream  as  generals  did  to 
prosecuting  the  war.  Again,  when  Patrick  Henry 
said,  "Caesar  had  his  Brutus,  Charles  I.  his  Crom- 
well, and  George  III.  may  profit  by  their  example," 
the  "example"  applied  to  George  III.  in  perhaps 
only  one  respect,  but  that  the  essential  element — 
the  effect  of  tyranny  upon  a  liberty-loving  people. 
However,  it  should  constantly  be  borne  in  mind 
that  so-called  examples  and  analogies  readily 
shade  off  into  mere  illustrations.  Illustrations  are 
good  to  illuminate  an  argument,  and  are  to  be 
frequently  employed  for  this  purpose,  but  they  are 
not  argument,  and  great  caution  is  needed  in  their 
use.  If  real  resemblance  is  lacking,  or  if  the  re- 
semblance fails  in  the  essential  particular,  a  fine 
opening  is  left  for  the  opposing  side.  It  has  well 
been  said  that  "example  and  analogy  are  of  value 
mainly  in  those  cases  where  the  parallel  conditions 
are  broad  and  easily  traced,  and  where  the  object 
is  to  make  an  argument  at  once  simple  and  impres- 
sive. They  are  best  applied  to  those  general  truths 
which  do  not  require  to  be  verified  so  much  as  to 
be  illustrated;  their  office,  even  in  argument,  is 
mainly  expository."  1  An  example  is  often  excellent 
for  illustrative  purposes,  but  it  does  not  necessarily 
prove  anything,  as  is  shown  in  the  following  excerpt 

1  Genung,  Practical  Rhetoric,  p.  425. 


132  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

from  a  Congressional  speech:  "Mr.  Speaker,  upon 
the  exercise  of  the  virile  strength  and  sovereign 
power  of  the  State  depend  the  strength  and  well- 
being  of  this  Republic,  for — 

"When  the  stem  dies  the  leaf  that  grew 
From  out  its  heart  must  perish  too." 


TESTS    OF   THE   ARGUMENT   FROM   ANALOGY 

1.  Do  the  objects  or  events  compared  show  a 
resemblance  in  the  essential  points  at  issue? 

2.  Do   the   points   of   similarity    outweigh    the 
points  of  difference? 

3.  Is   the    conclusion    not    disproved    by    other 
modes  of  argument? 

4.  Is   the  fact  more  likely  to  be  true  in  the 
analogous  case  than  the  case  considered? 

5 .  Are  the  alleged  analogous  facts  true  ? 

The  argument  from  Analogy  is  essentially  weak. 
To  have  any  convincing  value  it  should  meet  all 
the  foregoing  tests.  It  might  be  argued  that  the 
United  States  should  own  her  railroads  because 
Germany  does.  Applying  seriatim  the  tests  above 
stated,  we  may  ask:  (i)  Are  these  two  nations 
similar  in  respect  to  conditions  vital  to  successful 
ownership  of  railroads,  such  as  size,  centralized 
government,  etc.  ?  (2)  In  what  essential  points  do 
Germany  and  the  United  States  differ?  Do  these 
differences  outweigh  the  points  of  likeness?  (3) 
Can  we  find  any  valid  reason  why  the  United 
States  should  not  own  her  railroads?  (4)  If  Ger- 
many can  own  her  railroads,  is  it  not  all  the  more 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  133 

reason  why  the  United  States  should  own  hers? 
(5)  If  all  these  questions  can  be  answered  in  the 
affirmative,  we  cannot  consider  the  statement 
proved  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  statements 
relative  to  the  comparison  are  true.  Is  it  true 
that  the  government  ownership  of  railroads  in 
Germany  has  been  a  success?  Are  the  nations 
similar  in  size,  form  of  government,  etc.  ? 

These  tests  are  so  difficult  of  application  that 
examples  and  analogies,  unsupported  by  other 
evidence  or  argument,  are  rarely  convincing.  The 
method  is  therefore  chiefly  of  value,  as  we  have 
seen,  for  illustration  of  an  argument  rather  than 
for  argument  proper.  "Almost  anything  can  be 
established  by  a  simile,  even  opposite  sides  of  the 
same  question."  Unless  the  resemblance  be  real, 
you  can,  to  quote  a  favorite  metaphor  of  Lincoln's, 
"prove  a  horse  chestnut  to  be  a  chestnut  horse." 
There  must  be  not  only  a  resemblance  of  states, 
but  also  of  conditions;  not  only  must  relations  be 
alike,  but  it  must  be  shown  that  they  are  due  to 
the  same  or  like  causes. 

(2)  Generalization. — This  division  is  so  important 
that  many  writers  have  made  it  practically  usurp 
the  entire  field  of  induction.  It  is  the  inference 
from  the  few  to  the  many.  Analogy  compares  one 
case  to  another,  generalization  observes  a  number 
of  cases,  and  then  makes  a  rule  to  cover  all  that 
bear  a  resemblance  to  those  observed.  It  is  the 
method  used  in  classification,  in  the  formulation 
of  a  definition.  The  child  eats  an  apple  and  dis- 
covers that  it  contains  seeds.  He  eats  a  second 

IO 


134  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

and  a  third  and  finds  seeds  in  each  one.  He  soon 
generalizes  that  all  apples  have  seeds.  All  men  are 
mortal,  is  a  generalization  resulting  from  the  ob- 
servation of  many  specific  instances.  A  certain 
patent  medicine  was  used  by  a  few  sick  persons 
who  got  well;  the  company  selling  the  medicine 
immediately  proclaims  to  a  credulous  world  that 
it  will  cure  all  diseases  in  every  person.  That  is 
one  danger  in  this  mode  of  argument:  we  are  apt 
to  draw  conclusions  too  soon.  To  a  child  all  dogs 
are  pets,  all  rats  gray,  all  mothers  good.  Scripture 
records  where  the  inmates  of  a  few  households  were 
baptized,  and  the  argument  is  advanced  that  the 
Bible  prescribes  the  practice  of  infant  baptism.  A 
few  men  were  successful  without  a  good  education, 
and  we  conclude  that  an  education  is  not  necessary 
for  success.  However,  generalization  is  a  most  ser- 
viceable and  valid  mode  of  argumentation.  Burke 
thus  draws  an  inference  from  individual  instances  to 
prove  a  general  truth  with  respect  to  the  whole  class 
to  which  they  belong — the  method  of  induction: 

In  large  bodies  the  circulation  of  power  must  be  less 
vigorous  at  the  extremities.  Nature  has  said  it.  The 
Turk  cannot  govern  Egypt  and  Arabia  and  Kurdistan 
as  he  governs  Thrace;  nor  has  he  the  same  dominion  in 
Crimea  and  Algiers  which  he  has  at  Brusa  and  Smyrna. 
Despotism  itself  is  obliged  to  truck  and  huckster.  The 
Sultan  gets  such  obedience  as  he  can.  He  governs  with 
a  loose  rein,  that  he  may  govern  at  all;  and  the  whole 
of  the  force  and  vigor  of  his  authority  in  his  center  is 
derived  from  a  prudent  relaxation  in  all  his  borders. 
Spain,  in  her  provinces,  is,  perhaps,  not  so  well  obeyed 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  135 

as  you  are  in  yours.  She  complies,  too;  she  submits; 
she  watches  times.  This  is  the  immutable  condition, 
the  eternal  law  of  extensive  and  detached  empire.1 


TESTS    OF   THE   ARGUMENT  FROM   GENERALIZATION 

1.  Have  enough  examples  been  observed  to  war- 
rant the  generalization? 

2 .  Were  the  examples  observed  typical  of  the  class  ? 

3.  Is  there  no  positive  evidence  that  the  un- 
observed portion  offers  no  exception? 

4.  Is   the   generalization   in   accord   with   other 
known  facts? 

It  has  been  stated  that  Radium  cures  cancer. 
To  contend  for  the  affirmative,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  show  (i)  that  sufficient  cases  have  been  tested 
to  warrant  such  a  conclusion.  (2)  Did  these  cases 
include  the  various  kinds  of  cancer — soft  and  hard ; 
and  those  in  the  different  stages  of  development — 
incipient  and  chronic?  (3)  Is  there  a  single  case 
not  tried  that  is  known  to  be  positively  incurable? 
(4)  Is  it  highly  probable  that  radium  can  cure 
all  cases  of  cancer,  considering  the  nature  of  cancer 
and  the  curative  effects  of  radium?  If  all  these 
questions  can  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  the 
generalization  may  be  considered  valid. 

DEDUCTION 

It  was  stated  that  Induction  is  the  process  of 
reasoning  from  particular  facts  to  general  truths. 

Conciliation  with  the  American  Colonies,  Select  Works,  I, 
p.  184. 


136  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

Deduction  is  the  opposite.  It  is  reasoning  from  a 
general  truth  to  a  particular  fact.  When  studying 
grammar  we  learned  that  Nouns  are  names  of  ob- 
jects. When  we  saw  a  word  that  named  an  object 
we  called  it  a  noun.  In  so  doing  we  were  reasoning 
deductively.  To  make  clear  the  difference  between 
Induction  and  Deduction,  it  may  be  illustrated  thus : 

Induction 

1.  Specific  instances. 

a.  Football  is  an  outdoor  game  and  is 
beneficial. 

b.  Baseball  is  an  outdoor  game  and  is 
beneficial. 

c.  Golf    is    an    outdoor    game    and    is 
beneficial. 

d.  Hockey  is  an  outdoor  game  and  is 
beneficial. 

2.  Conclusion:    All  outdoor  games  are  bene- 

ficial. 

Deduction 

1.  Premises. 

a.  All  outdoor  games  are  beneficial. 

b.  Tennis  is  an  outdoor  game. 

2.  Conclusion:   Therefore  tennis  is  beneficial. 
There  are  various  forms  of  deductive  reasoning, 

but  the  typical  form  is  the  syllogism. 

Syllogism.  —  This  is  one  of  the  most  ancient 
forms  of  inference.  It  is  both  definite  and  con- 
clusive. The  major  premise  is  a  general  truth 
that  is  either  an  assumption  or  that  was  secured 
through  induction. 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  137 

The  syllogism  consists  of  three  statements  called 
major  premise,  minor  premise,  and  conclusion. 
Again,  each  statement  consists  of  two  parts  called 
" terms."  There  are  in  all  three  different  kinds 
of  terms:  major  term,  middle  term,  and  minor 
term.  This  can  be  made  clear  by  taking  the 
classic  illustration  used  by  Aristotle: 

Middle  term  Major  term 

1.  Major  premise:     All  men  are  mortal 

Minor  term  Middle  term 

2.  Minor  premise:  Socrates  is  a  man 

Minor  term  Major  term 

3.  Conclusion:    Therefore  Socrates  is  mortal 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  major  term  is  used  to 
include  the  largest  class  of  objects — all  mortal 
things.  The  middle  term  includes  the  next  largest 
class — men;  and  the  minor  term  the  smallest 
class — Socrates. 

The  practical  use  of  the  syllogism  is  not  in  its 
typical  form,  and  even  when  so  used  it  is  so  sur- 
rounded with  verbiage  and  its  premises  so  scat- 
tered throughout  entire  paragraphs  of  material 
bearing  indirectly  on  the  main  statements,  that 
the  premises  and  terms  are  difficult  to  find.  The 
following  item  is  clipped  from  a  local  newspaper, 
and  is  less  involved  than  the  average: 

All  business  is  based  upon  selfishness,  and  certainly 
the  banking  business  is  no  exception  to  the  rule.  Indeed, 


138  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

banking  is  the  very  refinement  of  business,  and  therefore 
the  very  refinement  of  selfishness. 

Lincoln,  in  his  debate  with  Douglas,  was  very 
desirous  of  making  his  argument  as  conclusive  as 
possible,  and  presented  the  following  definite  in- 
ference : 

Nothing  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  can 
destroy  a  right  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  ex- 
pressly affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Therefore,  nothing  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any 
State  can  destroy  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave. 

I  believe  that  no  fault  can  be  pointed  out  in  that 
argument;  assuming  the  truth  of  the  premises,  the  con- 
clusion, so  far  as  I  have  capacity  at  all  to  understand 
it,  follows  inevitably.1 

RULES    FOR    SYLLOGISM 

1.  Rules  of  Form: 

(a)  The  syllogism  has  three  terms  only,  each  used 
once. 

(Birds  fly. 

Dogs  run. 

No  conclusion.) 
(6)  The  syllogism  has  three  propositions  only. 

2.  Rules  governing  the  premises: 

(a)  No  conclusion  can  be  inferred  from  negative 
premises. 

(No  men  are  angels. 
No  men  are  perfect. 
No  conclusion.) 

1  Complete  Works,  edited  by  Nicolay  and  Hay,  p.  445. 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  139 

(b)  No  conclusion  can  be  inferred  from  particular 
premises. 

(Some  birds  swim. 
Some  birds  hop. 
No  conclusion.) 

3.  Rules  governing  distribution: 

(a)  The  middle  term  must   be   distributed    (i.e., 
made  universal). 

(Some  girls  are  pretty.   (All  girls  are  pretty. 
Some  girls  are  tall.         Some  girls  are  tall. 
No  conclusion.)  .*.  Some  pretty  girls 

are  tall). 

(b)  No  term  may  be  distributed  in  the  conclusion 
unless  distributed  in  the  premise. 

(All  birds  have  feathers.  (All  men  are  bipeds. 
No  man  is  a  bird.  Some  men  are  poets. 

No  conclusion.)  .".  Some    poets    are 

bipeds.) 

4.  Rules  governing  the  conclusion: 

(a)  A  negative  premise  gives  a  negative  conclusion, 
and  a  negative  conclusion  must  have  a  negative 
premise. 

(All  stars  twinkle. 
No  planet  twinkles. 
.'.  No  planet  is  a  star.) 

(b)  A  particular  premise  gives  a  particular  con- 
clusion. 

(No  gentlemen  swear. 

Some  gentlemen  play  ball. 

.'.  Some  ball-players  do  not  swear.) 

TESTS   OP  THE   SYLLOGISTIC  ARGUMENT 

1.  Are  the  premises  true? 

2,  Have  no  rules  of  the  syllogism  been  violated? 


i4o  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

The  student  will  have  little  difficulty  in  taking 
any  syllogism  and  applying  the  above  tests. 
Usually  more  difficulty  is  experienced  in  con- 
structing the  syllogistic  argument  than  in  de- 
tecting any  violation  of  the  tests.  The  greatest 
difficulty  the  debater  will  experience  with  the 
syllogism  is  the  selecting  of  premises  that  will 
not  be  questioned  by  his  opponent. 

A  modified  form  of  the  syllogism  is  more  fre- 
quently used;  it  is  called  the  Enthymeme.  This 
word  comes  from  two  Greek  words  meaning  in  the 
mind — that  is,  one  of  the  premises  is  not  expressed. 
It  is,  therefore,  an  abridged  syllogism,  and  should 
be  expanded  when  we  desire  to  test  its  validity. 
Usually  the  major  premise  is  omitted  because  this 
premise  always  expresses  a  general  truth  that  is 
often  well  known  and  can  be  easily  supplied  men- 
tally. As,  Socrates  is  mortal  because  he  is  a  man. 
The  major  premise — All  men  are  mortal — is  under- 
stood. Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart  for  they 
shall  see  God.  It  is  evident  that  the  conclusion 
is,  The  pure  in  heart  are  blessed;  and  that  the  minor 
premise  is,  The  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God.  The 
major  premise  is  not  expressed.  If  expanded  it 
would  be  in  this  form: 

1.  All  those  who  shall  see  God  are  blessed. 

2.  The  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God. 

3.  Therefore  the  pure  in  heart  are  blessed. 
You  can  usually  detect  the  syllogistic  form  of 

reasoning  by  the  presence  of  such  words  as, 
since,  for,  because,  therefore,  hence,  or  ac- 
cordingly. The  only  way  to  become  proficient 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  141 

in  expanding  the  abridged  syllogism  is  practice. 
And  this  should  be  done  whenever  opportunity 
affords. 

The  Sorites  is  another  modification  of  the  syllo- 
gism. It  comes  from  a  Greek  word  meaning  heap 
—sometimes  piled  up.  It  is  sometimes  spoken  of 
as  a  "chain"  of  reasoning.  It  is  a  compound 
syllogism,  and  is  made  up  of  three  or  more  prem- 
ises. The  following  is  adapted  from  a  statement 
made  by  Darwin  in  his  Origin  of  Species: 

Old  maids  protect  cats;  cats  kill  field-mice; 
field-mice  make  nests  that  in  turn  are  used  by  the 
bumblebees ;  bees  carry  the  pollen  from  one  clover 
blossom  to  another.  Therefore,  the  presence  of 
many  old  maids  in  a  community  is  not  favorable 
to  a  good  clover  crop. 

Although  the  conclusion  in  the  foregoing  example 
is  far-fetched,  we  may  have  a  sorites  made  up  of  a 
series  of  propositions  so  logically  related  as  to  lead 
to  a  reasonable  and  effective  conclusion. 

The  Dilemma  is  still  .another  modification  of  the 
syllogism.  It  is  more  difficult  to  formulate  than 
many  debaters  think.  Popularly  speaking,  it  sub- 
mits two  alternatives  to  the  opposition;  the  ac- 
ceptance of  either  will  lead  him  into  difficulties. 
It  is  derived  from  two  Greek  words  meaning  two 
assumptions.  The  dilemma  consists  in  a  condi- 
tional major  premise  having  more  than  one  ante- 
cedent, and  a  minor  premise  which  is  disjunctive. 
The  two  pairs  of  antecedents  and  their  consequences 
make  what  is  usually  termed  the  horns  of  the  di- 
lemma. If  the  disjunctive  major  premise  is  affirm- 


i42  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

ative,  leading  to  an  affirmative  conclusion,  we 
have  the  Constructive  Dilemma.  The  typical 
form  is: 

If  A  is  B,  C  is  D;    and  if  E  is  F,  C  is  D; 

But  either  A  is  B,  or  E  is  F; 

Therefore  C  is  D. 

It  is  said  that  when  Mohammed  conquered  the 
city  of  Alexandria,  the  question  of  the  destruction 
of  the  magnificent  library  was  considered.  Mo- 
hammed reasoned  thus: 

If  these  books  contain  the  same  doctrine  as  the 
Koran,  they  are  unnecessary; 

And  if  they  are  at  variance  with  the  Koran, 
they  are  pernicious; 

But  they  must  either  contain  the  same  doctrine 
as  the  Koran  or  be  at  variance  with  it ; 

Therefore,  these  books  are  either  unnecessary  or 
pernicious,  and  so  in  either  case  should  be  de- 
stroyed. 

In  Les  Mis6rables,  Javert,  a  police  inspector,  when 
about  to  arrest  Jean  Valjean,  an  escaped  convict, 
is  confronted  with  the  following  dilemma: 

What  should  he  do  now?  Give  up  Jean  Val- 
jean? That  would  be  wrong.  Leave  Jean  Val- 
jean free?  That  would  be  wrong.  In  the  first 
case  the  man  of  authority  would  fall  lower  than 
the  man  of  the  galley;  in  the  second,  the  convict 
rose  higher  than  the  law,  and  set  his  foot  upon  it; 
in  both  cases,  dishonor  to  Javert.  In  every  case 
that  was  open  to  him,  was  a  fall. 

In  the  famous  Lincoln-Douglas  debate,  Lincoln 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  i43 

asked  Douglas  the  following  question:  Can  the 
people  of  a  United  States  Territory  in  any  lawful 
way,  against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits,  prior  to  the 
formation  of  a  State  constitution? 

In  presenting  the  question  in  this  form,  Lincoln 
had  in  mind  one  or  more  dilemmas.  This  one  is 
possible : 

If  Douglas  answers  yes,  he  offends  the  South,  and 
if  he  answers  no,  he  offends  the  North; 

But  he  must  answer  either  yes  or  no; 

Therefore  he  will  offend  either  the  South  or  the 
North,  and  must  lose  either  the  Senatorship  in  the 
present  campaign  in  Illinois,  or  the  nomination  for 
the  Presidency  of  the  United  States  at  the  next 
election. 

The  main  difficulty  with  the  use  of  the  dilemma 
is  that  it  is  hard  to  exhaust  all  the  possible  alter- 
natives. As  in  the  example  just  cited,  it  is  not 
always  an  alternative  between  yes  or  no.  A  good 
dilemma  is  positive  and  convincing,  and  has  been 
used  successfully  in  many  debates. 

Method  of  Residues.  —  -  This  name  is  given  to 
that  form  of  argument  wherein  all  possible  ways 
of  dealing  with  the  question  are  enumerated,  and 
then  showing  that  only  one  way  is  correct.  It  is 
a  "boiling  down"  process,  sometimes  also  called 
the  argument  of  "logical  exclusion."  In  science 
it  is  "an  argument  in  which,  after  showing  that  all 
causes  but  one  are  insufficient  to  account  for  a 
phenomenon,  it  is  urged  that  the  one  remaining 
cause  must  be  the  true  one."  The  method  is,  then, 


H4  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

a  process  of  reasoning  by  tests.  The  debater 
points  out  certain  determining  principles,  certain 
limiting  conditions,  or  depicts  some  prominent 
features  of  the  case  in  point,  and  makes  these  repre- 
sentative or  determinative  of  the  whole  case. 
Whenever  a  question  lends  itself  to  this  method  of 
treatment,  it  is,  by  reason  of  its  broadness  and  com- 
prehensiveness, a  very  effective  plan  of  procedure. 
It  will  be  seen  that  it  is  in  reality  a  mixed  method 
of  refutation  and  direct  proof,  refutation  preceding 
and  leading  to  the  direct  argument.  Following 
is  an  example  from  a  brief  of  the  question,  "Re- 
solved, that  the  deportation  of  all  negroes  in  this 
country  to  one  of  our  island  possessions  offers  the 
best  solution  of  the  race  problem": 

I  think  it  will  be  agreed  that  the  following  plans  ex- 
haust the  possible  schemes  for  the  solution  of  our  race 
problem:  (i)  Educate  the  negro  and  recognize  him  as 
an  equal  co-citizen,  fraternizing  with  him.  (2)  Let  the 
two  races  amalgamate  and  become  one  race.  (3)  Let 
the  negro  remain  a  co-citizen  in  name,  but  in  reality  an 
inferior,  a  servant,  and  a  slave.  (4)  Deport  the  negro 
to  our  island  possessions,  and  with  government  aid  let 
him  work  out  his  own  salvation. 

After  showing  that  the  first  three  plans  offer  no 
solution  of  the  problem,  and  that  the  last  plan 
does,  the  following  conclusion  is  reached: 

Since  to  educate  the  negro  and  recognize  him  as  an 
equal  is  not  a  possible  solution  of  the  race  problem,  be- 
cause of  his  mental  inferiority  and  his  physical  make-up; 
and  since  the  amalgamation  of  the  race  is  odious  and 


ARGUMENTS  —  CONSTRUCTIVE  145 

impossible;  and  since  to  let  the  negro  remain  a  co- 
citizen  in  name  and  a  slave  in  reality  is  dangerous  to  our 
Government,  because  it  creates  strife,  class  distinction, 
and  loss  of  respect  for  law;  and  since  the  possible  solu- 
tion left  is  practical,  because  it  has  been  tried  in  the 
past,  because  the  negro  is  not  commercially  necessary 
to  the  South,  and  because  it  gives  a  final  solution  of  the 
race  problem — therefore  the  negroes  should  be  deported 
to  our  island  possessions. 

Another  example  of  this  form  of  argument  oc- 
curs in  Burke's  speech  on  "  Conciliation  with 
America": 

Sir,  if  I  were  capable  of  engaging  you  to  an  equal  at- 
tention, I  would  state  that,  as  far  as  I  am  capable  of 
discerning,  there  are  but  three  ways  of  proceeding  rela- 
tive to  this  stubborn  spirit  which  prevails  in  your 
colonies  and  disturbs  your  Government.  These  are — 
to  change  that  spirit,  as  inconvenient,  by  removing  the 
causes;  to  prosecute  it  as  criminal;  or  to  comply  with 
it  as  necessary.  I  would  not  be  guilty  of  an  imperfect 
enumeration;  I  can  think  of  but  these  three.  Another 
has  indeed  been  started — that  of  giving  up  the  colonies; 
but  it  met  so  slight  a  reception  that  I  do  not  think  my- 
self obliged  to  dwell  a  great  while  upon  it.  It  is  noth- 
ing but  a  little  sally  of  anger,  like  the  frowardness  of 
peevish  children,  who,  when  they  cannot  get  all  they 
would  have,  are  resolved  to  take  nothing. 

Burke  then  argues  that  the  first  two  plans  are 
impracticable,  and  summarizes  as  follows: 

If,  then,  the  removal  of  the  causes  of  this  spirit  of 
American  liberty  be  for  the  greater  part,  or  rather  en- 
tirely, impracticable;  if  the  ideas  of  criminal  process 


i46  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

be  inapplicable — or,  if  applicable,  are  in  the  highest 
degree  inexpedient — what  way  yet  remains  ?  No  way  is 
open  but  the  third  and  last — to  comply  with  the  Ameri- 
can spirit  as  necessary ;  or,  if  you  please,  to  submit  to  it 
as  a  necessary  evil. 

TESTS    OF   THE   METHOD   OF   RESIDUES 

1.  Have  all  possible  aspects  or  solutions  been 
enumerated  ? 

2.  Have  all  aspects  but  the  alleged  true  one  been 
destroyed? 

3.  Has   the   alleged   true   one   been   established 
affirmatively  ? 

All  the  alternatives  should  be  carefully  classified, 
and  as  limited  in  number  as  possible;  but  at  the 
same  time  the  enumeration  must  be  exhaustive — 
that  is,  it  must  not  overlook  any  essential  con- 
sideration— and  herein  lies  the  great  danger  in  the 
use  of  this  method.  The  preceding  example  from 
Burke  is,  in  fact,  open  to  the  objection  of  the  "im- 
perfect enumeration"  which  he  sought  to  avoid — 
or,  rather,  to  an  undue  slighting  of  the  plan  men- 
tioned by  way  of  an  afterthought  and  not  con- 
sidered in  his  subsequent  argument,  "that  of  giving 
up  the  colonies." 

EXERCISES 

What  kind  of  argument  is  used  in  each  of  the  following 
examples?  Point  out  any  fallacies  in  the  reasoning.  (Note 
that  some  of  the  examples  may  not  be  readily  classified  under 
the  special  kinds  of  arguments  dealt  with  in  this  chapter.  In 
such  cases  any  fallacy  may  usually  be  detected  by  reducing 
the  statements  to  syllogistic  form,) 


ARGUMENTS  — CONSTRUCTIVE  147 

1.  The  consensus  of  opinion  among  the  American  people  is 
that  trusts  are  assuming  threatening  proportions;    that  some 
method  should  be  devised  whereby  the  general  Government 
shall  limit  their  power.     It  is  to  be  presumed,  therefore,  that 
a  trust  is  an  economic  evil;    and  such  presumption,  in  turn, 
carries  with  it  the  further  presumption  that  there  is  a  remedy 
for  such  evil. 

2.  It  is  our  duty  to  retain  possession  of  the  Philippine  Islands, 
for  the  Report  of  the  Philippine  Commission  so  declares. 

3.  The  government  of  India  by  England  has  proved  a  losing 
financial  venture;    therefore  we  may  expect  the  same  will 
prove  true  of  the  government  of  the  Philippines  by  America. 

4.  We  have  had  a  period  of  general  prosperity  under  the 
operation  of  a  protective  tariff.     We  must  therefore  conclude 
that  protection  is  a  good  thing  for  this  country. 

5.  One  of  three  principles  must  be  applied  in  inflicting  pun- 
ishment for  crime:   (i)  Revenge  on  the  criminal;   (2)  the  pro- 
tection of  society;  or  (3)  the  reform  of  the  criminal.     The  first 
is  inhuman,  the  second  can  be  accomplished  in  applying  the 
third.     Therefore  the  reform  of  the  criminal  should  be  the 
object  of  all  penal  legislation;  and  if  this  be  true,  capital  pun- 
ishment should  be  abolished,  for  how  can  you  reform  a  dead 
man? 

6.  If  we  can  show  that  a  large  majority  of  successful  busi- 
ness men  are  college  graduates,  is  not  the  inference  plain  that 
a  college  education  prepares  one  for  a  business  career? 

7.  "Walter  McMillan  will  serve  as  a  good  illustration  of  a 
young  man  who  'woke  up/    He  was  employed  as  a  clerk  by 
the  Armour  Packing  Company  of  Kansas  City,  with  nothing 
in  prospect  but  his  desk  with  its  endless  drudgery.    He  read 
the  signs  correctly,  and  after  careful  investigation  decided 
that  the  Chicane  College  of  Advertising  could  give  him  the 
thorough,  practical  advertising  education  he  craved.    Almost 
immediately  after  completing  the  course  he  was  referred  by 
the  College  to  the  Kansas  City  Journal,  where  he  started  at 
just  four  times  the  salary  he  was  receiving  in  his  former  posi- 
tion.    He  is  there  to-day  and  has  been  still  further  advanced. 
What  Mr.  McMillan  has  done  you  can  do." 


148  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

8.  Dr.  John  Smith's  Soothing  Syrup  has  been  used  for  over 
fifty  years  by  millions  of  mothers  for  their  children,  while 
teething,  with  perfect  success.     All  mothers  having  children 
which  are  teething  should  use  it. 

9.  Mr.  Clarence  Darrow,  the  lawyer  who  won  great  dis- 
tinction as  counsel  for  the  United  Mine  Workers'  Union  before 
the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission,  is  representing  the 
street-car  employees  in  the  Chicago  trouble.     We  may  there- 
fore look  for  an  amicable  settlement  of  the  latter  strike  in  the 
near  future. 

10.  New  Zealand  has  for  several  years  had  in  successful 
operation  a  law  requiring  the  compulsory  arbitration  of  in- 
dustrial disputes.    The  United  States  should  have  a  similar 
law. 

11.  Nations,  like  individuals,  are  born,  flourish,  and  decay. 
We  may  therefore  infer  the  ultimate  downfall  of  this  Republic. 

12.  Of  course  you  ought  to  be  good,  for  you  belong  to  a 
church  and  go  to  prayer-meeting;  but  I  make  no  professions. 

13.  Written  examinations  are  not  an  absolutely  fair  test  of  a 
student's  scholarship — much  less  of  his  industry  and  intelli- 
gence.    It  is  therefore  wrong  to  base  his  grade  upon  them. 

14.  I  am  justified  in  passing  this  counterfeit  money.     The 
public  gave  it  to  me  and  the  public  ought  to  get  it  back  again. 

15.  Everybody  ought  to  contribute  something  to  the  support 
of  the  unfortunate;  therefore  there  is  no  harm  in  a  law  which 
compels  him  to  do  so. 

1 6.  We  all  drank  this  water  and  none  of  us  became  sick, 
so  this  outcry  about  the  danger  of  typhoid  is  all  nonsense. 

17.  The  people  who  say  that  athletic  victories  do  not  in- 
crease the  attendance  at  a  school  are  mistaken.     In  the  last 
six  years  we  have  beaten  our  main  rival  in  football  five  times; 
and  in  that  period  the  number  of  students  here  has  increased 
from  750  to  1,200. 

1 8.  The  referendum  has  been  tried  in  Switzerland  and  has 
worked  well  for  a  number  of  years;  we  may  therefore  reason- 
ably expect  that  it  would  work  well  in  the  United  States. 

19.  Trains  run  with  Blank's  oil  have  made  the  fastest  time 
in  railway  records. 


ARGUMENTS  —  CONSTRUCTIVE  149 

20.  One  of  two  things  is  true  —  either  the  laws  of  the  Union 
are  beyond  the  control  of  the  States,  or  else  we  have  no  Con- 
stitution of  general  government,  and  are  thrust  back  again 
to  the  days  of  the  Confederation.  —  (WEBSTER.) 

21.  "Heretofore,  and  until  very  recently,  the  Democratic 
Senators  have  been  very  far  from  agreeing  about  tariff  questions. 
A  number  of  them  have  been  as  radical  in  their  tariff-reform 
views  as  the  Democrats  of  the  other  House.    It  seemed,  on 
this  account,  antecedently  impossible  to  bring  the  Democrats 
of  the  Senate  together  in  support  of  the  great  measure  that  Mr. 
Underwood,  with  President  Wilson's  approval,  carried  through 
the  House  of  Representatives." 

22.  "It  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  protective  principle 
that  we  should  only  have  a  protective  tariff  between  us  and 
countries  to  which  the  conditions  are  so  dissimilar  as  to  make 
a  difference  in  the  cost  of  production.     Now  it  is  known  by  all 
men  that  the  general  conditions  that  prevail  in  Canada  are 
the  same  as  those  which  obtain  in  the  United  States  in  the 
matter  of  agricultural  products.     Indeed,  if  there  is  any  ad- 
vantage, the  advantage  is  largely  on  the  side  of  the  United 
States,  because  we  have  a  much  greater  variety  of  products, 
in  view  of  the  varieties  of  our  climate,  than  they  can  have  in 
Canada."    (From  a  speech  by  ex-President  Taft  on  the  proposed 
Reciprocity  Treaty  with  Canada.) 

23.  "Suppose  you  examine  1,000  families  having  drunken 
parents.    You  find,  say,  that  7  per  cent,  of  the  children  are 
defective.    You  conclude  that  the  children  are  defective  be- 
cause the  parents  drank.     But  presently  I  report  just  as  high 
a  percentage  of  defectives  in  another  1,000  families,  taken  at 
random,  whose  parents  never  drank  a  drop.     You  see  the 
point:    the  statistics  of  your  1,000  families  are  not  collated 
with  those  of  non-alcoholic  families;  that  is,  you  are  assaying 
a  picked  sample  of  humanity,  not  a  random  or  average  sample." 
(From  an  article  in  the  "American  Magazine"  for  January, 


24.  England  established  a  protectorate  over  Egypt  and  the 
Transvaal,  and  eventually  owned  them;  France  did  the  same 
to  Morocco;  Austria,  to  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina;  Japan,  to 
ii 


i5o  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

Korea;   therefore,  if  the  United  States  established  a  protec- 
torate over  Mexico,  we  would  eventually  own  it. 

25.  Expand    the    following    enthymemes,    and   tell    which 
premise  is  understood: 

(a)   We  do  not  need  a  large  navy,  for  we  are  protected  by 

the  oceans, 
(ft)   All  beetles  have  six  legs,  because  they  are  insects. 

(c)  All  kings  are  men,  therefore  must  die. 

(d)  Blessed  are  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth. 

(e)  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  the  least  of  these 
my  brethren  ye  have  done  it  unto  me. 

26.  Name  the  major,    minor,    and    middle    terms    in    the 
following: 

(a)  Americans  love  freedom;   Mr.  Jones  is  an  American, 
and  hence  loves  freedom. 

(b)  All  leeches  must  be  true  worms;   for  all  annelids  are 
worms,  and  leeches  are  annelids. 

27.  Construct  a  syllogism  with  eagle  as  the  minor  term, 
birds  of  prey  as  the  middle  term,  and  capable  of  sustained  flight 
as  the  major  term. 

28.  With  insects  are  vertebrates  as  a  major  premise,  supply 
a  minor  premise  to  prove  that  butterflies  are  vertebrates. 

29.  Bring  to  the  class  an  example  of  each  of  the  modes  of 
Inductive  and  Deductive  inferences. 


VI 

ARGUMENT — REFUTATION 

DEPUTATION  is  the  process  of  weakening  or 
i\  destroying  the  contention  of  the  opposition. 
It  consists  of  defense  and  attack;  advancing  your 
own  position  and  destroying  the  position  main- 
tained by  your  opponent. 

Refutation,  like  constructive  argument,  may  be 
direct  or  indirect.  When  a  speaker  meets  objec- 
tions to  his  argument,  it  is  direct  refutation;  when 
he  produces  an  argument  to  supplant  that  offered 
against  him,  that  is  indirect  refutation.  Refuta- 
tion, therefore,  is  not  only  destructive,  in  the  sense 
of  detaching  separate  points  for  answer;  it  is  also 
constructive.  It  may  meet  a  given  plan  by  show- 
ing that  another  plan  is  better;  it  may  meet  the 
other  side  as  a  whole  by  proving  one's  own  side  as 
a  whole  is  stronger.  And  such  indirect  refutation 
is  the  more  effective.  Negative  argument  alone  is 
rarely  sufficient.  Belief  is  essentially  positive; 
hence  the  best  refutation  not  only  tears  down,  but 
also  builds  up — supplies  something  better  than  the 
thing  destroyed.  In  debating  a  question  of  policy, 
for  example,  unanswered  objections  to  a  proposed 


152  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

solution  for  existing  evils  would  fulfil  the  require- 
ments of  pure  logic,  but  it  would  not  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  the  average  audience.  If  the  op- 
ponent of  the  proposed  plan  can  go  further,  and 
show  a  better  plan,  his  case  is  infinitely  strengthened. 

Effective  refutation,  usually  the  most  difficult 
branch  of  argumentation  for  a  student  to  master, 
depends  upon  following  pretty  closely  these  two 
rules:  (i)  Clearly  analyze  your  opponent's  argu- 
ments, and  (2)  Answer  only  the  strong  arguments 
against  you. 

i.  Since  refutation  is  either  the  destruction  or 
overbalancing  of  an  opponent's  proof,  the  debater 
must  always  recognize,  first,  that  there  is  an  op- 
posing side,  and,  secondly — when  he  is  upholding 
the  negative — that  the  opponent  is  already  in  pos- 
session of  the  field.  It  will  not  do,  therefore,  in 
either  the  preparation  or  progress  of  the  debate  to 
ignore  the  arguments  against  you.  In  the  course 
of  preparation  the  successful  debater  will  always 
learn  the  strong  and  weak  points  of  the  other  side, 
as  well  as  those  of  his  own  side.  He  will  be  ready, 
not  only  to  defend  himself  against  attack,  but  will 
have  decided  upon  a  line  of  refutation  to  meet  each 
one  of  several  lines  of  argument  that  may  be  of- 
fered by  his  opponent.  The  first  requirement, 
then,  of  successful  refutation  is  to  study  the  other 
side;  and  then,  in  actual  debate,  to  state  clearly — 
more  clearly,  if  possible,  than  your  opponent 
states  it — the  proof  produced  against  you.  "The 
case  of  my  opponent,"  the  debater  replies,  "amounts 
to  this";  or,  "In  the  argument  of  my  opponent, 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION       153 

we  may  for  the  present  waive  all  but  the  third 
point."  The  statement  of  the  opponent's  case 
must  of  course  be  honest,  comprehensive,  and  fair, 
and  it  must  appear  to  be  so  to  the  hearers.  A  study 
of  masterpieces  in  argumentation  will  show  how 
great  debaters  have  acted  on  this  principle.  It  is 
said  that  the  success  of  Lincoln  and  Webster  in 
legal  arguments  was  due  largely  to  their  handling 
of  the  opponent's  case.  As  bearing  on  both  of  the 
rules  above  laid  down,  Lincoln's  method  is  thus 
described  by  a  member  of  the  Chicago  Bar: 

He  was  wise  in  knowing  what  to  attempt  and  what 
to  let  alone.  He  was  fair  to  the  court,  the  jury,  and  his 
adversary;  candor  compels  me  to  say,  however,  that 
he  by  practice  learned  there  was  power  in  this.  As  he 
entered  the  trial,  where  most  lawyers  object  he  said 
he  "reckoned"  it  would  be  fair  to  admit  this  or  that; 
and  sometimes  when  his  adversary  could  not  prove 
what  Lincoln  knew  to  be  the  truth,  he  said  he  "reck- 
oned" it  would  be  fair  to  admit  the  truth  to  be  so  and  so. 
When  he  did  object  to  a  ruling  of  the  court  and  such 
objection  was  overruled,  he  would  often  say,  "Well,  I 
reckon  I  must  be  wrong."  Now,  about  the  time  he 
had  practised  this  three-quarters  through  the  case,  if 
his  adversary  did  not  understand  him  he  would  wake 
up  finding  that  he  had  feared  the  Greeks  too  late. 
When  the  whole  thing  was  unraveled  the  adversary  be- 
gan to  see  that  what  Lincoln  was  so  blandly  giving 
away  was  simply  what  he  could  not  get  and  keep.  By 
giving  away  six  points  and  carrying  the  seventh  he  car- 
ried his  case;  the  whole  case  hanging  on  the  seventh,  he 
traded  everything  off  which  would  not  aid  him  in  carry- 
ing that  vital  point. 


iS4  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

In  his  Reply  to  Hayne,  Webster  thus  states  the 
arguments  adduced  against  him: 

I  understand  the  honorable  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina  to  maintain  that  it  is  a  right  of  the  State  legis- 
latures to  interfere  whenever,  in  their  judgment,  this 
Government  transcends  its  constitutional  limits,  and  to 
arrest  the  operation  of  its  laws.  I  understand  him  to 
maintain  this  right  as  a  right  exis-ing  under  the  Con- 
stitution, not  as  a  right  to  overthrow  it  on  the  ground 
of  extreme  necessity,  such  as  would  justify  revolution. 
I  understand  him  to  maintain  an  authority,  on  the 
part  of  the  States,  thus  to  interfere  for  the  purpose  of 
correcting  the  exercise  by  the  general  Government,  of 
checking  it,  and  of  compelling  it  to  conform  to  their 
opinion  of  the  extent  of  its  powers.  I  understand  him 
to  maintain  that  the  ultimate  power  of  judging  of  the 
constitutional  extent  of  its  own  authority  is  not  lodged 
exclusively  in  the  general  Government  or  any  branch 
of  it;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  States  may  law- 
fully decide  for  themselves,  and  each  State  for  itself, 
whether,  in  a  given  case,  the  act  of  the  general  Govern- 
ment transcends  its  power.  I  understand  him  to  insist 
that  if  the  exigency  of  the  case,  in  the  opinion  of  any 
State  Government,  require  it,  such  State  Government 
may,  by  its  own  sovereign  authority,  annul  an  act  of 
the  general  Government  which  it  deems  plainly  and 
palpably  unconstitutional.  This  is  the  sum  of  what  I 
understand  from  him  to  be  the  South  Carolina  doctrine, 
and  the  doctrine  which  he  maintains.  I  propose  to 
consider  it,  and  compare  it  with  the  Constitution.1 

2.  The  stated  analysis  of  your  opponent's  ar- 
gument leads  naturally  to  the  second  step  in  refu- 

1  The  Great  Debates,  Riverside  Series,  p.  182. 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION       155 

tation — answering  the  strong  arguments  against 
you.  And  only  the  strong  opposing  arguments  are 
to  be  answered.  While  there  is  great  danger  in 
refuting  too  little,  there  is  the  still  greater  danger 
of  refuting  too  much.  The  typically  clumsy  de- 
bater takes  up  his  refutation  by  rehearsing  a  long 
list  of  "  points "  that  he  has  noted  down  for  the 
purpose  of  answering.  Many  of  these  are  wholly 
irrelevant,  or  at  best  they  are  of  little  argumenta- 
tive force,  and  the  rehearsal  of  these  "points" 
only  serves  to  emphasize  them  unduly  to  the  minds 
of  the  hearers.  "The  speaker  who  hurls  a  ponder- 
ous refutation  at  a  weak  argument  is  like  a  builder 
who  should  erect  a  huge  derrick  in  order  to  lift  a 
small  stone;  people  would  infer  that  the  stone 
must  be  much  heavier  than  it  looks."1  In  this 
sort  of  refutation  the  debater  only  dissipates  his 
energies  and  scatters  his  forces.  This  scattering 
method  naturally  gives  his  argument  a  scattering 
effect.  His  refutation  is  a  series  of  pop-gun  shots 
all  about  his  enemy's  intrenchments,  without  send- 
ing a  solid  shot  at  any  vital  part.  Effective  refuta- 
tion (and  direct  argument  as  well)  does  not  consist 
in  enumerating  "points,"  but  rather  in  aiming  at 
points  vital  to  the  issue.  "Refutation  is  not  a 
Donnybrook  Fair;  don't  hit  every  head  you  see, 
but  aim  at  the  leaders."  2  Just  as  in  the  analysis  of 
a  question  to  determine  the  issues  extraneous  matter 
is  excluded,  so  in  refutation  the  debater  must  subor- 
dinate the  less  important  and  strike  at  central  ideas. 

1  Clark,  Practical  Rhetoric,  p.  297. 

2  Baker  and  Huntington,  Principles  of  Argumentation,  p.  174. 


156  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

Now,  an  opponent's  arguments,  for  the  purpose 
of  refutation,  may  be  roughly  divided  into  these 
four  classes:  (i)  Those  which  may  safely  and 
properly  be  admitted  as  true.  Admit  them.  (2) 
Those  which  are  beside  the  point,  having  no  argu- 
mentative force — including  statements  made  in- 
advertently, mere  slips  of  memory,  and  the  like. 
Ignore  these,  or  at  the  most  brush  them  aside 
with  a  sentence  or  two.  (3)  Those  having  some 
bearing  on  the  question,  but  more  or  less  remotely 
related  to  it.  Answer  these  briefly,  if  time  permits. 
(4)  Those  bearing  directly  on  the  issues — the  really 
strong  arguments  against  you.  Answer  these  first 
and  foremost. 

To  refute,  then,  one  must  detect  the  weak 
places,  or  gaps,  in  an  opposing  argument,  and  aim 
at  them.  Such  gaps  are  known  as  fallacies. 

FALLACIES 

Since  it  is  impossible  in  debating  generally  to 
prove  any  proposition  absolutely,  every  mode  of 
argument  has  its  individual  fallacy  or  fallacies 
which  constitutes  its  special  weakness.  In  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  under  the  different  kinds  of  con- 
structive arguments  the  possible  fallacies  peculiar 
to  each  were  pointed  out  in  the  enumeration  of 
"tests."  By  way  of  recapitulation,  the  debater, 
for  the  purpose  of  refutation,  must  ask  himself 
and  be  ready  to  answer  such  questions  as :  Has  the 
opposing  speaker  indulged  in  mere  assertions,  with- 
out proof?  Has  he  presented  the  facts  correctly? 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION       157 

If  so,  has  he  drawn  unwarranted  inferences  from 
admitted  facts?  Is  the  evidence  submitted  open 
to  attack?  Is  the  authority  on  which  he  relies 
competent,  unprejudiced,  and  otherwise  accept- 
able? Are  there  any  gaps  in  his  arguments  from 
casual  relationship?  Are  examples  and  analogies 
based  on  true  resemblances  to  the  case  in  point? 
Has  your  opponent  been  guilty  of  imperfect  enu- 
meration or  hasty  generalization  ?  Are  his  premises 
true  and  have  proper  conclusions  been  drawn  from 
them? 

SPECIAL   FORMS   OF   FALLACIES 

In  addition  to  the  preceding,  logicians  have 
classified  various  special  forms  of  fallacious  reason- 
ing, among  which  are  the  following: 

i.  Begging  the  question  (petitio  principii). — This 
fallacy  consists,  generally,  in  assuming  what  is  to 
be  proved.  Two  forms  are  generally  recognized: 

a.  Unwarranted  assumptions.  —  These  include 
mere  assertions  without  proof;  unadmitted  assump- 
tions used  as  proof;  assuming  some  general  prop- 
osition which  includes  the  particular  proposition 
to  be  proved;  and  assuming  the  equivalent  of  the 
conclusion  to  be  reached. 

It  might  seem  strange  that  any  one  would  be  so 
foolish  as  to  assume  the  truth  of  his  conclusion  as 
a  means  of  proving  it,  nevertheless  it  is  a  fault  all 
too  common  in  amateur  debating;  and  words  and 
phrases,  especially  in  a  long  discussion,  help  to 
cloak  the  error.  For  example:  "A  prohibitory 
law  should  be  enacted,  for  this  is  the  only  way  to 


i58  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

control  the  liquor  traffic,"  begs  the  question,  since 
the  second  proposition  assumes  the  truth  of  the 
first  proposition.  So,  a  religious  body  condemn- 
ing a  belief  because  it  is  "heresy,"  begs  the  ques- 
tion, since  heresy  is  a  belief  which  should  be  con- 
demned. "Immigrants  should  be  excluded  from 
this  country,  for  they  are  not  needed,"  stated  in 
the  form  of  a  syllogism,  would  read:  All  that  is 
not  needed  in  this  country  should  be  excluded; 
immigrants  are  not  needed;  therefore  immigrants 
should  be  excluded.  It  is  readily  apparent  that 
both  the  major  and  minor  premises  are  unwar- 
ranted assertions.  If  one  says,  "The  Germans  will 
win  this  battle  because  they  are  irresistible,"  the 
reasoning  is  based  on  an  unproved  general  proposi- 
tion which  includes  the  particular  proposition  to 
be  proved.  And  any  statement  which,  instead  of 
supporting  a  proposition,  merely  states  it  in  another 
form  by  varying  the  expression,  or  assigns  the 
proposition  incidents  granting  it  to  be  true,  or  in 
any  way  assumes  the  truth  of  what  is  to  be  proved 
— is  only  a  mere  repetition  of  the  proposition,  and 
is  no  argument  or  proof. 

b.  Arguing  in  a  circle. — This  fallacy  consists  in 
assuming  the  truth  of  a  premise,  then  deducing  a 
conclusion  from  this  premise,  and  then  using  this 
conclusion  to  establish  the  premise.  Thus,  a 
catchy  advertisement  of  a  certain  restaurant  reads : 
"If  it  is  good  to  eat,  we  have  it;  for  if  we  have  it, 
it  is  good  to  eat."  In  the  case  of  Ogden  vs.  Saunders 
Webster  thus  analyzed  an  extended  argument  by 
the  opposing  counsel: 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION       159 

The  plantiff  in  error  argues  in  a  complete  circle.  He 
supposes  the  parties  to  this  contract  to  have  had  refer- 
ence to  the  statute  law  because  it  was  a  binding  law, 
and  yet  he  proves  it  to  be  a  binding  law  only  upon  the 
ground  that  such  reference  was  made  to  it. 

2.  Ignoring  the  question  (ignoratio  elenchi),  or 
ignoring  what  is  to  be  proved.  This  fallacy  results 
when  the  speaker  argues  beside  the  point,  or  to 
the  wrong  point.  He  may  either  shift  from  one 
argument  to  another,  or  he  may  avoid  the  main 
issue  altogether.  The  reasoning  may  not  be  fal- 
lacious in  itself,  but  the  fallacy  lies  in  a  gap  be- 
tween the  proof  offered  and  the  main  issues. 
Sometimes  a  debater  will  glide  almost  imper- 
ceptibly from  one  proposition  to  another,  and  his 
opponent  needs  to  revert  constantly  to  the  analysis 
of  the  question  to  make  him  meet  the  case.  The 
politician,  called  upon  to  reply  to  warranted  criti- 
cisms upon  some  party  measure,  is  wont  to  indulge 
in  vague  talk  about  " local  self-government," 
''constitutional  rights,"  and  the  like.  When  hard 
pressed  as  to  the  real  merits  of  the  case,  the  attor- 
ney frequently  resorts  to  pleas  for  "justice"  and 
"righteousness";  or  he  may  dwell  upon  the  crime 
rather  than  upon  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner.  The 
debater  may  dwell  upon  the  evils  of  intemperance, 
when  the  question  is  the  best  remedy  to  cure  such 
evils.  The  following  oft-quoted  extract  shows 
what  Macaulay  claimed  was  a  wide-spread  use  of 
this  fallacy: 

The  advocates  of  Charles  the  First,  like  the  advo- 
cates of  other  malefactors  against  whom  overwhelm- 


160  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

ing  evidence  is  produced,  generally  decline  all  con- 
troversy about  the  facts,  and  content  themselves  with 
calling  attention  to  character.  .  .  .  And  what,  after  all, 
are  the  virtues  ascribed  to  Charles?  A  religious  zeal, 
not  more  sincere  than  that  of  his  son,  and  fully  as 
weak  and  narrow-minded,  and  a  few  of  the  ordinary 
household  decencies  which  half  the  tombstones  in 
England  claim  for  those  who  lie  beneath  them.  A 
good  father!  A  good  husband!  Ample  apologies  in- 
deed for  fifteen  years  of  persecution,  tyranny,  and 
falsehood!  We  charge  him  with  having  broken  his 
coronation  oath ;  and  we  are  told  that  he  kept  his  mar- 
riage vow!  We  accuse  him  of  having  given  up  his 
people  to  the  merciless  inflictions  of  the  most  hot- 
headed and  hard-hearted  of  prelates;  and  the  defense 
is,  that  he  took  his  little  son  on  his  knee  and  kissed  him ! 
We  censure  him  for  having  violated  the  articles  of  the 
Petition  of  Right,  after  having,  for  good  and  valuable 
consideration,  promised  to  observe  them;  and  we  are 
informed  that  he  was  accustomed  to  hear  prayers  at 
six  o'clock  in  the  morning!  .  .  .  We  cannot,  in  estimating 
the  character  of  an  individual,  leave  out  of  our  con- 
sideration his  conduct  in  the  most  important  of  all 
human  relations;  and  if  in  that  relation  we  find  him 
selfish,  cruel,  and  deceitful,  we  shall  take  the  liberty 
to  call  him  a  bad  man,  in  spite  of  all  his  temperance 
at  table  and  all  his  regularity  at  chapel. 

c.  Part  proof. — Another  form  of  ignoring  the 
question  is,  to  ignore  the  important  issue,  prove 
only  a  subdivision,  yet  insist  that  the  entire  proposi- 
tion has  been  proved.  A  lawyer  will  sometimes 
attempt  to  prove  a  prisoner  guilty  of  a  specific 
crime,  by  proving  that  the  prisoner  has  a  criminal 
record,  or  by  proving  that  there  was  a  motive  for 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION       161 

the  crime,  or  that  the  prisoner  was  in  the  community 
when  the  crime  was  committed.  "Wilson's  admin- 
istration is  a  failure,"  writes  a  local  correspondent, 
"because  he  permits  the  killing  of  American  citizens 
in  Mexico."  "The  writings  of  Hawthorne  are  un- 
interesting," says  a  student,  "for  I  have  read  The 
House  of  the  Seven  Gables,  and  I  didn't  like  it." 

d.  Making  objections. — Just  because  a  measure  is 
not  perfect,  is  not  sufficient  reason  to  reject  it. 
Two  questions  should  always  be  asked  when  ob- 
jections are  raised:   (i)  Are  the  objections  vital  to 
the  point  at  issue?  and  (2)  Do  the  objections  out- 
weigh the  advantages?     It  has  been  argued  against 
compulsory  education  that  it  cannot  be  enforced. 
The  answer  would  be,  every  law  that  is  not  a  dead 
letter    has    been    transgressed.     Objections    have 
been  made  to  national  prohibition  that  it  would 
violate  States'  rights.     Or,  that  prohibition  would 
interfere  with  personal  liberty.    Yet  personal  lib- 
erty is  never  an  issue  when  a  smallpox  patient  is 
compelled  to  move  to  the  city  hospital.     There  are 
some  objections  to  every  question,   and  the  ad- 
vancement of  a  single  objection  and  thereby  claim- 
ing that  the  question  has  been  refuted,  is  a  fallacy. 

e.  Argumentum  ad  populum. — This  is  the  name 
of  an  old  fallacy  that  appeals  to  the  prejudice, 
passion,  or  humor  of  the  hearers  rather  than  to 
their  intellect.     Such  a  speech  bears  very  remotely 
on  the  question  at  issue.     People  are  frequently 
more  easily  moved  to  action  through  their  passions 
and   prejudices    than    through    their   intelligence. 
Antony's  speech  at  the  funeral  of  Julius  Caesar  is 


162  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

a  classical  example.  The  entire  speech  contains 
very  little  about  the  question  at  issue  between 
Brutus  and  Caesar's  adherents.  Antony  plays  on 
the  passion  and  greed  of  the  rabble  with  such 
demagogic  skill  that  he  turns  them  from  avowed 
enemies  to  the  most  obedient  slaves. 

f.  Argumentum  ad  ignorantiam. — There  are  two 
divisions  of  this  fallacy:  one  is  to  take  advantage 
of  the  ignorance  of  your  audience  and  use  words 
and  phrases  so  high-sounding  and  learned  as  to 
impress  your  hearers  with  the  fact  that  you  are 
very  learned,  and  although  they  are  unable  to 
follow  your  argument,  they  cannot  believe  you  in 
the  wrong.  For  this  purpose  foreign  phrases  are 
often  introduced.  The  second  form  of  this  fallacy  is 
more  frequently  used — namely,  that  of  attempting 
to  throw  the  burden  of  proof  upon  the  other  party 
to  an  argument,  when  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
disproof  is  as  impossible  as  proof;  or,  it  is  an  at- 
tempt to  prove  a  given  proposition  true  by  showing 
that  its  opposite  cannot  be  proved.  But  proving 
a  thing  untrue  is  not  proving  its  opposite.  The 
fallacy  consists  in  confusing  refutation  with  posi- 
tive proof.  The  man  who  argues  that  the  soul 
dies  because  no  one  has  ever  proved  its  immortality, 
or  vice  versa,  is  using  this  fallacy.  Debaters  are 
very  prone  to  shift  the  burden  of  proof  to  the  oppo- 
sition, instead  of  meeting  the  issue  squarely.  Some- 
times the  negative  side  will  suggest  a  substitute 
measure  without  offering  any  substantial  proof  of  its 
merits,  and  insist  that  the  affirmative  must  dis- 
prove its  superiority  over  the  measure  proposed. 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION       163 

g.  Argumentum  ad  verecundiam. — This  fallacy 
represents  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  speaker 
to  move  his  audience  by  an  appeal  to  reverence  of 
authority,  traditions,  customs,  etc.  A  long  list  of 
great  and  reputable  names  is  submitted  in  support 
of  a  proposition  instead  of  proving  it  on  rational 
grounds.  Ancient  and  religious  names  are  frequently 
used.  It  is  an  argument  from  precedent,  or,  "what- 
ever has  been,  should  be."  This  kind  of  thinking 
made  the  Middle  Ages  so  barren,  and  is  what  has 
kept  China  non-progressive  throughout  the  cen- 
turies. Henry  Clay  was  guilty  of  this  fallacy  when 
he  said,  "Two  hundred  years  of  legislation  have 
sanctioned  and  sanctified  negro  slaves  as  property." 
Washington,  Jefferson,  Jackson,  and  Lincoln  are 
names  with  which  to  conjure  in  political  cam- 
paigns; Plato  and  Spencer,  in  philosophy;  and 
Froebel  and  Horace  Mann,  in  education. 

A  lawyer,  perturbed  at  the  evidence  submitted 
by  his  opponent,  said:  "Why,  I  never  heard  of 
such  a  thing  in  all  my  life."  "Your  Honor,"  came 
the  quick  reply,  "I  cannot  allow  the  gentleman's 
ignorance,  however  vast,  to  offset  my  knowledge, 
however  small." 

h.  Argumentum  ad  hominem. — This  argument  is 
an  appeal  or  attack  "addressed  to  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances, character,  avowed  opinions,  or  past 
conduct  of  the  individual,  and  therefore  has  refer- 
ence to  him  only,  and  does  not  bear  directly  and 
absolutely  on  the  real  question."1  It  attacks  an 

1  Whately,  Elements  of  Logic,  p.  237. 


164  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

opponent's  consistency  or  character,  rather  than 
his  argument.  It  is  often  heard  in  courts  of  law 
and  in  political  campaigns,  when  men  and  not 
principles  are  attacked.  It  is  gratifying  to  note, 
however,  that  this  kind  of  argument  has  become 
less  and  less  common  in  modern  public  debate. 
When  an  opponent's  character  is  attacked,  it  ob- 
viously has  no  bearing  on  the  merits  of  a  question 
other  than  to  discredit  him  as  a  witness.  And 
when  his  consistency  is  attacked,  this,  too,  can  go 
no  farther  than  to  discredit  him  personally;  it 
leaves  the  real  question  untouched.  The  urging 
of  an  opponent's  inconsistency — that  his  advocacy 
of  a  certain  measure  is  contrary  to  his  opinions  as 
previously  expressed,  or  with  his  circumstances — 
has,  it  is  true,  a  certain  force  in  popular  harangues, 
but  the  argument  is  frequently  worked  beyond  its 
legitimate  limits.  Suppose  a  man  does  argue  con- 
trary to  his  record  or  to  his  circumstances — what 
of  it?  This  fact  has  no  bearing  on  his  argument, 
nor  does  it  necessarily  impeach  his  sincerity. 

3.  Ambiguous  terminology. — The  debater  can 
never  be  too  careful  about  the  words  he  uses  and 
the  manner  in  which  he  uses  them.  To  be  able  to 
express  just  the  right  shade  of  meaning  demands  a 
careful  study  of  synonyms  and  diction.  Such 
words  as  mob,  crowd,  democratic,  representative,  are 
frequently  used  to  express  more  than  one  meaning 
by  the  same  speaker.  Words  like  expansion,  so- 
cialism, anarchy,  may  be  used  either  in  a  colorless 
or  in  a  prejudicial  sense,  but  they  cannot  properly 
be  used  in  both  senses  in  the  same  argument. 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION      165 

Again,  great  care  should  be  used  to  avoid  applying 
the  same  meaning  to  different  words.  Inaccurate 
thinkers  and  speakers  often  confuse  such  words 
as  socialist  and  sociologist,  socialism  and  Marxism, 
spiritualism  and  spirituality,  value  and  price,  military 
and  militarism,  etc.  Each  word  has  a  definite  and 
precise  meaning  and  should  be  used  with  all  possible 
accuracy  by  the  debater.  The  wrong  meaning  of  a 
particular  word,  as  applied  to  a  particular  state- 
ment, is  another  common  form  of  this  fallacy.  A 
bald  example — though  an  argument  not  infrequent- 
ly used — is  the  following:  The  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence declares  that  all  men  are  created  free 
and  equal;  therefore  the  negro  is  the  equal  of  the 
white  man. 

4.  Composition  and  division. — These  two  fal- 
lacies may  be  considered  together,  although  the  one 
is  the  converse  of  the  other.  The  fallacy  of  com- 
position consists  in  assuming  that  what  is  true  of 
a  part  is  true  of  the  whole.  Because  two  individuals 
have  not  been  a  success  financially  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  when  married  they  will  not  be  a  success. 
It  is  fallacious  to  assume  that  what  is  true  of  each 
member  of  a  class  taken  distributively,  the  same 
holds  true  of  the  class  taken  collectively.  Each 
man  in  a  regiment  may  be  a  coward,  while  the 
regiment  may  be  very  brave.  The  crowd  mind 
thinks  differently  from  the  separate  individuals 
composing  that  crowd. 

The  fallacy  of  division  consists  in  assuming  that 
what  is  true  of  the  whole  is  true  of  a  part.  Water 
is  a  liquid,  but  the  separate  elements — oxygen  and 


12 


i66  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

hydrogen — are  not  liquids.  The  United  States  as 
a  nation  was  neutral  in  its  attitude  toward  the 
European  war,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  each  of 
its  citizens  was  neutral.  A  committee  may  give  a 
student  first  place  in  a  contest,  while  no  single 
member  of  that  committee  ranked  him  first. 

SPECIAL   METHODS    OF   REFUTATION 

It  is  sometimes  desirable  to  attack  an  opponent's 
argument  as  a  whole.  Especially  is  this  true  when 
the  debate  is  upon  some  definite  question.  But 
whether  aimed  at  an  argument  in  its  entirety  or 
at  some  single  argument  in  a  debate,  following  are 
some  special  methods  often  used  for  the  purpose 
of  destroying  or  diminishing  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ments of  the  opposition. 

i.  Reductio  ad  absurdum. — One  of  the  most 
commonly  used  methods  of  refutation  is  that  of 
reducing  an  argument  to  an  absurdity,  or,  as  it  is 
named,  the  reductio  ad  absurdum — a  term  bor- 
rowed from  geometrical  demonstration.  By  this 
method,  the  refuter  assumes  for  the  moment  that 
a  given  proposition  is  true,  and  then  points  out  the 
absurd  results  to  which  it  leads.  The  method  may 
of  course  be  used  as  to  the  main  question  under  dis- 
cussion, or  as  to  any  particular  proposition  ad- 
vanced by  an  opponent.  Following  is  a  classic 
example  from  Webster's  Reply  to  Hayne: 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  run  the  honorable 
gentleman's  doctrine  a  little  into  its  practical  applica- 
tion. Let  us  look  at  his  probable  modus  operandi.  If 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION      167 

a  thing  can  be  done,  an  ingenious  man  can  tell  how  it 
is  to  be  done,  and  I  wish  to  be  informed  how  this  State 
interference  is  to  be  put  in  practice  without  violence, 
bloodshed,  and  rebellion.  We  will  take  the  existing 
case  of  the  tariff  law.  South  Carolina  is  said  to  have 
made  up  her  opinion  upon  it.  If  we  do  not  repeal  it 
(as  we  probably  shall  not),  she  will  then  apply  to  the 
case  the  remedy  of  her  doctrine.  She  will,  we  must 
suppose,  pass  a  law  of  her  Legislature  declaring  the  sev- 
eral Acts  of  Congress,  usually  called  the  tariff  laws,  null 
and  void,  so  far  as  they  respect  South  Carolina  or  the 
citizens  thereof.  So  far,  all  is  a  paper  transaction,  and 
easy  enough.  But  the  collector  at  Charleston  is  col- 
lecting the  duties  imposed  by  these  tariff  laws.  He, 
therefore,  must  be  stopped.  The  collector  will  seize 
the  goods  if  the  tariff  duties  are  not  paid.  The  State 
authorities  will  undertake  their  rescue.  The  marshal, 
with  his  posse,  will  come  to  the  collector's  aid,  and 
here  the  contest  begins.  The  militia  of  the  State  will 
be  called  out  to  sustain  the  nullifying  Act.  They  will 
march,  sir,  under  a  very  gallant  leader,  for  I  believe  the 
honorable  member  himself  commands  the  militia  in 
that  part  of  the  State.  He  will  raise  the  nullifying  Act 
on  his  standard  and  spread  it  out  as  his  banner.  It 
will  have  a  preamble,  setting  forth  that  the  tariff  laws 
are  palpable,  deliberate,  and  dangerous  violations  of 
the  Constitution!  He  will  proceed,  with  his  banner 
flying,  to  the  custom-house  in  Charleston, 

"All  the  while, 
Sonorous  metal  blowing  martial  sounds. " 

Arrived  at  the  custom-house,  he  will  tell  the  collector 
that  he  must  collect  no  more  duties  under  any  of  the 
tariff  laws.  .  .  .  But,  sir,  the  collector  would  not,  prob- 


i68  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

ably,  desist  at  his  bidding.  He  would  show  him  the 
law  of  Congress,  the  Treasury  instruction,  and  his  own 
oath  of  office.  He  would  say  he  should  perform  his 
duty,  come  what  might.  .  .  .  Direct  collision,  therefore, 
between  force  and  force  is  the  unavoidable  result  of 
that  remedy  for  the  revision  of  unconstitutional  laws 
which  the  gentleman  contends  for.  It  must  happen 
in  the  very  first  case  to  which  it  is  applied.1 

A  form  of  the  reductio  ad  absurdum  is  that  of 
"enforcing  the  consequences,"  or,  as  we  commonly 
say,  such  and  such  an  argument  "proves  too  much." 
It  proves  not  only  its  own  conclusion,  but  also  one 
or  more  others  which  are  absurd.  The  refuter 
shows  that  an  opponent's  argument  leads  to  unde- 
sirable conditions  or  results  over  and  beyond  the 
matter  under  immediate  discussion.  Thus,  in  the 
debate  in  the  United  States  Senate  relative  to  the 
Philippine  question,  in  1900,  replying  to  the  argu- 
ment of  Senator  Beveridge,  that  to  establish  a 
good  colonial  government  abroad  would  stimulate 
good  government  at  home,  Senator  Hoar  said: 

If  I  understood  him  correctly,  he  said  also  that  he 
thought  it  was  not  necessary  to  wait  until  we  could  get 
the  very  best  of  government  here,  but  if  we  established 
it  abroad  under  some  commissioners  to  be  appointed 
by  some  executive  authority,  they  would  govern  so 
well  that  they  would  furnish  a  good  example  for  us 
at  home,  and  we  should  improve.  I  suppose,  though 
he  did  not  say  it,  that  he  thinks  also  we  had  better  not 
have  free  speech  here  in  the  United  States  Senate  until 

1  The  Great  Debate,  pp.  208-211. 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION      169 

they  have  got  it  out  among  the  Filipinos,  to  see  whether 
it  works  there,  and  then  it  may  come  back  to  us  in  a 
way  which  would  gradually  permit  us  to  use  it  here, 
in  a  sort  of  diluted  form. 

The  reductio  ad  absurdum  is  the  most  com- 
monly used,  perhaps,  of  all  the  methods  of  refuta- 
tion. By  reason  of  its  simplicity  and  directness, 
together  with  a  flavor  of  humor  that  frequently  ac- 
companies its  use,  the  method  is,  when  well  con- 
ceived and  carried  out,  very  effective. 

2.  Adopting  an  opponent's  evidence. — This  method 
is  commonly  called  "turning  the  tables."  It  con- 
sists in  taking  the  evidence  which  was  submitted 
by  an  opponent  and  using  it  to  support  your  own 
contention  or  to  refute  his.  This  is  an  effective 
weapon  in  the  hands  of  an  alert  debater.  The  op- 
portunity presents  itself  when  an  opponent  does 
not  grasp  the  full  significance  of  the  evidence  he 
submits  and  its  ultimate  bearing  on  the  question 
at  issue.  Thus,  in  a  debate  on  The  Abolition  of 
Capital  Punishment,  the  affirmative  cited  the 
Mosaic  law  which  declared  the  doctrine  of  "an 
eye  for  an  eye  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth."  The  nega- 
tive accepted  the  Mosaic  law  and  turned  the  tables  by 
quoting  the  commandment,  "Thou  shalt  not  kill." 

Lincoln  used  this  method  in  turning  the  warn- 
ing of  Washington  against  those  who  had  used  it 
against  abolition: 

Some  of  you  delight  to  flaunt  in  our  faces  the  warn- 
ing against  sectional  parties  given  by  Washington  in 
his  Farewell  Address.  Less  than  eight  years  before 


170  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

Washington  gave  that  warning,  he  had,  as  President 
of  the  United  States,  approved  and  signed  an  Act  of 
Congress  enforcing  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the 
Northwest  Territory,  which  Act  embodied  the  policy 
of  the  Government  upon  the  subject  up  to  and  at  the 
very  moment  he  penned  that  warning;  and  about  one 
year  after  he  penned  it,  he  wrote  Lafayette  that  he 
considered  that  prohibition  a  wise  measure,  express- 
ing in  the  same  connection  his  hope  that  we  should  at 
some  time  have  a  confederacy  of  free  States. 

Bearing  this  in  mind,  and  seeing  that  sectionalism 
has  since  risen  upon  this  same  subject,  is  that  warning 
a  weapon  in  your  hands  against  us,  or  in  our  hands 
against  you?  Could  Washington  himself  speak,  would 
he  cast  the  blame  of  that  sectionalism  upon  us  who 
sustain  his  policy,  or  upon  you  who  repudiate  it?  We 
respect  the  warning  of  Washington,  and  we  commend 
it  to  you,  together  with  his  example  pointing  to  the 
right  application  of  it.1 

3.  Exposing  inconsistencies. — We  saw  in  Chapter 
IV  that  evidence  should  be  consistent  with  (i) 
itself,  (2)  other  facts  in  the  case,  (3)  ordinary  ex- 
perience. In  any  debate  inconsistencies  may  read- 
ily appear  either  in  the  evidence  itself  or  in  the 
conclusions  inferred  from  the  evidence.  Every  de- 
bater should  carefully  guard  his  own  evidence  and 
make  it  consistent  with  that  offered  by  his  col- 
league, and  then  watch  for  any  inconsistencies  in 
the  proof  submitted  by  his  opponents. 

In  the  Lincoln-Douglas  debates,  Douglas  had 
maintained  that  slavery  could  be  lawfully  excluded 

1  Lincoln's  Cooper  Institute  Speech,  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates, 
Bouton. 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION      171 

from  a  territory  in  spite  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision. 
Lincoln  exposes  the  inconsistency  as  follows : 

The  Dred  Scott  Decision  expressly  gives  every  citi- 
zen of  the  United  States  a  right  to  carry  his  slaves  into 
the  United  States  Territories.  Now,  there  was  some 
inconsistency  in  saying  that  the  decision  was  right, 
and  saying,  too,  that  the  people  of  the  territory  could 
lawfully  drive  slavery  out  again.  When  all  the  trash, 
the  words,  the  collateral  matter,  was  cleared  away 
from  it,  all  the  chaff  was  fanned  out  of  it,  it  was  bare 
absurdity :  no  less  than  a  thing  may  be  lawfully  driven 
away  from  a  place  where  it  has  a  lawful  right  to  be. 
Clear  it  of  all  the  verbiage,  and  that  is  the  naked  truth 
of  his  proposition,  that  a  thing  may  be  lawfully  driven 
from  the  place  where  it  has  a  lawful  right  to  be.1 

4.  Amplifying  and  diminishing. — To  amplify  and 
diminish  one  uses  both  direct  argument  and  refuta- 
tion, but  the  effect  is  largely  that  of  refutation. 
The  method  consists  in  magnifying  (amplifying) 
your  own  argument,  and  at  the  same  time  be- 
littling (diminishing)  that  of  your  opponent.  It  is, 
therefore,  a  balancing  process,  the  arguments  pro 
and  con  being  placed  in  juxtaposition  with  the  ob- 
ject of  giving  a  more  favorable  view  to  your  side 
of  the  case.  To  cite  a  standard  example,  Burke 
refutes  Lord  North's  plan  for  conciliating  the 
American  colonies  by  amplifying  his  own  plan  and 
diminishing  that  of  Lord  North's: 

Compare  the  two.  This  I  offer  to  give  you  is  plain 
and  simple;  the  other  full  of  perplexed  and  intricate 

1  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates,  p.  379. 


172  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

mazes.  This  is  mild;  that  harsh.  This  is  found  by 
experience  effectual  for  its  purposes ;  the  other  is  a  new 
project.  This  is  universal ;  the  other  calculated  for  cer- 
tain colonies  only.  This  is  immediate  in  its  conciliatory 
operation;  the  other  remote,  contingent,  full  of  hazard. 
Mine  is  what  becomes  the  dignity  of  a  ruling  people — 
gratuitous,  unconditional,  and  not  held  out  as  a  matter 
of  bargain  and  sale. 

Demosthenes  uses  this  method  in  his  speech  On 
the  Crown.  It  was  really  a  debate  between  Demos- 
thenes and  ^schines,  the  loser  to  be  exiled: 

Contrast  now  the  circumstances  of  your  life  and 
mine,  ^schines,  and  then  ask  these  people  whose  for- 
tunes they  would  each  of  them  prefer.  You  taught 
reading,  I  went  to  school;  you  performed  initiations, 
I  received  them;  you  danced  in  the  chorus,  I  furnished 
it;  you  were  assembly  clerk,  I  was  speaker;  you  acted 
third  parts,  I  heard  you;  you  broke  down,  and  I 
hissed ;  you  have  worked  as  a  statesman  for  the  enemy, 
I  for  my  country. 

This  method  of  Amplifying  and  Diminishing  is 
of  service  as  a  summary  at  the  close  of  a  debate. 
The  arguments  of  the  opposition  may  be  profitably 
contrasted  with  your  own,  the  effort  being,  of  course, 
to  show  the  greater  strength  of  your  own  arguments. 

EXERCISES 

Let  the  student  point  out  the  general  method  of  refutation 
and  the  fallacies,  if  any,  in  the  following  arguments: 

i.  It  is  said  that  the  control  of  trusts  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment is  unjustifiable  and  unconstitutional.  But  why  should 
not  the  Government  control  such  monopolistic  and  unjusti- 
fiable combinations,? 


ARGUMENT —  REFUTATION       173 

2.  With  the  free  and  unlimited  coinage  of  silver  at  the  ratio 
of  1 6  to  i,  silver  either  would  or  would  not  maintain  its  parity 
with  gold.     If  silver  should  maintain  its  parity,  free  coinage 
is  unnecessary,  for  that  is  the  condition  at  present;  if  it  should 
not,  free  coinage  is  undesirable,  for  it  would  cause  inflated 
prices  and  business  unrest. 

3.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  declares  that  all  men 
are  free  and  equal.    Therefore  the  negro  is  the  equal  of  the 
white  man. 

4.  All  criminal  actions  ought  to  be  punished  by  law.    Prose- 
cutions for  theft  are  criminal  actions.    Therefore,  prosecu- 
tions for  theft  ought  to  be  punished  by  law. 

5.  It  is  always  wrong  to  lie;    for  any  departure,  for  any 
reason  whatever,  from  the  one  invariable  law  of  absolute 
veracity  is  always  reprehensible. 

6.  This  island  empire  The  [Philippines]  is  the  last  land  left 
in  all  the  oceans.     If  it  should  prove  a  mistake  to  abandon  it, 
the  blunder,  once  made,  would  be  irretrievable.     If  it  proves 
a  mistake  to  hold  it,  the  error  can  be  corrected  when  we  will. 
Every  other  progressive  nation  stands  ready  to  relieve  us. — 
(Beveridge.) 

7.  So  those  are  your  arguments  against  my  course  of  conduct; 
and  yet  the  fact  remains  that  when  you  were  in  my  position 
you  did  the  very  thing  that  you  are  now  advising  me  not  to  do. 

8.  If  a  student  likes  his  studies  he  needs  no  stimulus;  if  he 
dislikes  his  studies  no  stimulus  will  avail;  but  a  student  either 
likes  his  studies  or  he  dislikes  them;    therefore  stimulus  is 
either  not  necessary,  or  it  is  of  no  avail. 

9.  You  cannot  help  going  with  the  minority,  who  are  strug- 
gling for  their  rights  against  the  majority.     Nothing  could  be 
more  generous,  when  a  weak  party  stands  for  its  own  legitimate 
rights  against  imperious  pride  and  power,  than  to  sympathize 
with  the  weak.     But  who  ever  sympathized  with  a  weak  thief, 
because  three  constables  had  got  hold  of  him?    And  yet  the 
one  thief  in  the  three  policemen's  hands  is  the  weaker  party. 
I  suppose  you  would  sympathize  with  him. — (Beecher,  Liverpool 
Speech.) 

jo.  The  increased  immigration  of  Japanese  would  be  bene- 


174  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

ficial  to  the  State  of  Texas;   therefore  it  would  be  beneficial 
to  the  United  States. 

11.  The  Panama  Canal  will  be  commercially  beneficial  to 
the  United  States;  therefore  it  will  be  commercially  beneficial 
to  the  State  of  New  York. 

12.  This  State  has  many  undeveloped  resources.    But  we 
have  a  State  University.    Therefore  the  higher  education  un- 
fits one  for  a  business  career. 

13.  Plug-hats  are  worn  in  all  civilized  countries.    In  barbaric 
countries  there  are  no  plug-hats.    Therefore,  it  is  impossible  to 
have  civilization  without  plug-hats. — (Elbert  Hubbard.) 

14.  The  United  States  was  not  neutral  in  the  European  war 
because  she  furnished  arms  and  ammunition  to  the  Allies. 

15.  The  minimum  wage  will  be  a  success  in  the  United 
States  because  it  has  been  a  success  in  Australia,  New  Zealand, 
and  England. 

1 6.  Unemployment  causes  the  poverty  of  a  nation. 

17.  ^Eschines  is  either  inconsistent  or  unpatriotic;    for  he 
either  joined  in  the  public  rejoicings,  or  else  he  did  not.     If 
he  did  join  in  them,  he  was  inconsistent.     If  he  did  not  join 
in  them,  he  was  unpatriotic.    In  either  case  he  is  guilty. — 
(Demosthenes.) 

1 8.  The  battleship  Texas  is  invincible,  for  we  have  a  strong 
navy. 

19.  "Officer,  arrest  this  man  for  procrastination." 
"But  procrastination  is  no  crime." 

"Yes,  but  isn't  procrastination  the  thief  of  time?" 
"But  you  cannot  arrest  a  man  for  stealing  time." 
"Yes,  but  isn't  time  money?" 

20.  A  Missouri  ranchman  telegraphed  his  friend,  "If  you 
desire  any  more  mules  do  not  forget  me." 

2 1 .  "Statistics  prove  that  the  length  of  the  business  man's  life 
is  not  so  long  as  it  was  twenty  years  ago." — (L.  C.  Wezmiller.) 

22.  "The  girl  who  has  had  her  breakfast  served  to  her  every 
day,  who  has  been  helped  to  dress,  who  has  been  sheltered 
from  all  domestic  duties,  is  not  fit  for  a  wife  and  mother." — 
(Prof.  Charles  Zeublin.) 

23.  Protagoras,  the  sophist,  is  said  to  have  made  an  agree- 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION      175 

ment  to  teach  Euathlus  the  art  of  pleading  for  a  fee.  One-half 
was  to  be  paid  when  fully  instructed,  and  the  other  half  when 
he  won  his  first  case  in  court.  Euathlus  put  off  beginning  his 
practice,  and  Protagoras  brought  suit  for  the  other  half  of  his 
fee.  Protagoras  reasoned  thus: 

"If  Euathlus  loses  his  case,  he  must  pay  me,  by  the  judgment 
of  the  court;  if  he  wins,  he  must  pay  me  according  to  the  terms 
of  the  contract.  But  he  must  either  win  or  lose;  therefore  he 
must  pay  me  in  either  case." 

His  pupil,  Euathlus,  offered  the  following  rebuttal: 
"If  I  win  the  case  I  ought  not  to  pay,  by  the  judgment 
of  the  court;  and  if  I  lose  it,  I  ought  not  to  pay,  by  the  terms 
of  the  contract.     But  I  must  either  win  or  lose,  therefore  I 
ought  not  to  pay." 

24.  "I  wonder  if  the  Germans  have  actually  committed  all 
those  atrocities?" 

"I  wouldn't  be  surprised.    I  once  had  a  German  cook." 

25.  Every  lawyer  that  I  have  ever  seen  has  been  able  to 
make  a  living  if  he  half  tries.    Then  cannot  we  say  that  all 
lawyers,  if  they  try,  are  going  to  make  a  living?    This  state- 
ment must  stand  until  some  one  can  show  us  an  exception. 

26.  I  believe  that  the  cost  of  living  should  be  high,  because 
those  who  can  afford  it  are  in  no  wise  injured  thereby,  while 
the  lower  classes  are  thus  left  with  less  money  to  spend  for 
drink  and  other  harmful  things. 

27.  Our  successful  career  as  grocerymen  in  Temple — first 
as  deliverymen,  then  clerks,  then  merchants,  are  evidences 
of  some  claim  which  the  public  has  on  us.    And  again  the 
reliability  in  our  goods,  coupled  with  our  ability  to  give  you 
a  hundred  cents  for  every  dollar  you  spend  with  us,  is  enough. 
Besides,  we  are  out  of  the  high-rent  district  and  here  is  where 
you  save  again.     If  you  don't  believe  what  we  say,  try  us. 

28.  You  charge  that  we  stir  insurrections  among  our  slaves. 
We  deny  it;  and  what  is  your  proof?    Harper's  Ferry!    John 
Brown!    John  Brown  was  no  Republican;  and  you  have  failed 
to  implicate  a  single  Republican  in  his  Harper's  Ferry  enter- 
prise.    If  any  member  of  our  party  is  guilty  in  that  matter, 
you  know  it  or  you  do  not  know  it.    If  you  do  know  it,  you  are 


176  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

inexcusable  for  not  designating  the  man  and  proving  the  fact. 
If  you  do  not  know  it,  you  are  inexcusable  for  asserting  it,  and 
especially  for  persisting  in  the  assertion  you  have  tried  and 
failed  to  make  the  proof. — (Lincoln,  Address  at  Cooper  Institute.} 

29.  When  I  consider  that  we  have  colonies  for  no  purpose 
but  to  be  serviceable  to  us,  it  seems  to  my  poor  understanding 
a  little  preposterous  to  make  them  unserviceable  in  order  to 
keep  them  obedient. — (Burke.} 

30.  Senator  Depew's  opinion  of  the  United  States  Senate 
is  that  it  displays  "an  absence  of  jobbery,  an  unselfish  devotion 
to  the  public  service,  a  sincere  and  hopeful  patriotism,  and  a 
broad,  comprehensive,  and  statesmanlike  grasp  of  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  country  and  the  possibilities  of  its  development 
worthy  of  the  best  days  of  the  Republic."    The  history  of  the 
last  river  and  harbor  bill   showed   that   conclusively. — (The 
Philadelphia  Ledger.} 

31.  I  do  not  admit  the  competency  of  South  Carolina,  or 
any  other  State,  to  prescribe  my  constitutional  duty  or  to  pass 
upon  the  validity  of  laws  enacted  by  Congress.  .  .  .  And,  sir, 
if  we  look  to  the  general  nature  of  the  case,  could  anything 
have  been  more  preposterous  than  to  make  a  government  for 
the  whole  Union,  and  yet  leave  its  powers  subject,  not  to  one 
interpretation,  but  to  thirteen  or  twenty-four  interpretations? 
.  .  .  Would  anything  with  such  a  principle  in  it,  or  rather  with 
such  a  destitution  of  all  principles,  be  fit  to  be  called  a  govern- 
ment?    No,  sir.     It  should  not  be  denominated  a  Constitu- 
tion.    It  should  be  called,  rather,  a  collection  of  topics  for 
everlasting  controversy;    heads  of  debate  for  a  disputatious 
people. — (Webster ,  Reply  to  Hayne.} 

32.  "There  is  no  doubt,"  he  said,  "that  when  a  man  eats 
flesh  he  puts  into  himself  a  certain  poison  which  is  detrimental 
to  his  well-being.    There  is  no  doubt  of  that,  is  there?" 

"You  seem  to  have  none,"  I  said. 

"Of  course  I  haven't!  Nor  has  any  other  person  who  isn't 
so  bound  by  custom  that  he  is  blind  to  his  own  interests.  I 
know  what  I  am  talking  about.  Why,  since  I  became  a  vege- 
tarian I  have  lost  all  the  ills  I  had.  I  never  catch  cold;  nor 
have  I  any  dyspepsia  or  sciatica.  Did  you  ever  have  sciatica?" 


ARGUMENT  — REFUTATION       177 

"Not  yet." 

He  rubbed  his  leg. 

"It  is  frightful!"  he  said.  "I  had  it  for  twenty-five  years; 
and  I  had  lumbago  and  a  lot  of  other  things.  Now  they  are 
all  gone — vanished!  And  they  all  were  the  results  of  eating 
meat." 

33.  Senator  A has  voluntarily  told  you  gentlemen  of 

the  Senate  that  he  has  now  in  his  pocket  500  poll-tax  receipts. 

The  vote  of  B County  is  largely  Mexican  votes.    Senator 

A has  been  elected  to  the  Senate  by  those  votes.     He  is 

a  big  property-holder  in  that  county,  and  seeks  to  have  formed 
a  county  of  his  own  so  that  he  can  control  it.     He  is  a  crook 
and  was  illegally  elected  to  the  Senate.    There  are  now  four 

indictments  in  B County  against  him.   This  bill  should  be 

defeated  because  he  is  a  crook. 

34.  Germany  is  said  to  be  willing  to  admit,  in  final  settle- 
ment of  the  Lusitania  case,  that  neutrals  aboard  belligerent 
ships  have  a  right  to  protection  and  safety,  but  unwilling  to 
admit  that  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania  was  illegal.     Since  the 
passengers  aboard  the  Lusitania  were  given  no  warning,  and 
therefore  no  chance  to  save  their  lives,  the  doctrine  which 
Germany  is  said  to  be  willing  to  subscribe  to  condemns  by 
necessary  implication  the  manner  in  which  the  Lusitania  was 
sunk.     If  passengers  are  entitled  to  the  protection  and  safety 
thus  acknowledged,  then  the  Lusitania  was  sunk  in  an  illegal 
manner;  whereas,  per  contra,  if  the  manner  of  the  sinking  of 
the  Lusitania  was  not  illegal,  then  passengers  have  no  claim 
to  the  rights  which  Germany  is  said  to  be  ready  to  acknowl- 
edge.   Apparently,  the  only  remaining  issue  between  Secretary 
Lansing  and  Count  von  Bernstorff  is  a  question  whether  Ger- 
many is  to  make  an  express  or  implied  acknowledgment  of 
wrongdoing  in  sinking  the  Lusitania. — (Dallas  News.) 

35.  Give  an  example  from  your  own  experience  where  vague 
authorities  have  been  cited  as  direct  evidence. 

36.  In  the  proposition,   "Law  is  the  uniform  action  of 
energy,"  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  "law"? 

37.  Select  from  magazines  or  newspapers  an  example  of 
each  of  the  fallacies  discussed  in  this  chapter. 


VII 

THE   BRIEF 

PURPOSE. — Some  kind  of  an  outline  is  indis- 
pensable to  the  presentation  of  the  argument 
in  full.  In  the  first  place,  an  outline  is  necessary  for 
getting  an  orderly  arrangement  of  the  proof.  Ideas 
are  not  ordinarily  to  be  presented  in  the  same  order 
in  which  they  were  obtained.  There  must  be  such 
a  rearrangement  and  classification  of  the  material 
that  the  whole  course  of  the  discussion  is  covered 
in  orderly  progression  from  the  starting-point  to 
the  end  desired;  and  an  outline  may  be  said  to 
furnish  a  map  of  the  territory  to  be  traversed. 
Secondly,  such  orderly  classification  is  necessary  in 
order  to  impress  the  plan  of  the  whole  argument 
upon  one's  mind.  No  ordinary  person  can  carry 
in  his  memory  a  complete  outline  of  an  argument 
without  first  reducing  it  to  writing.  Further,  when 
the  time  comes  for  presenting  the  proof  in  final 
form,  whether  it  be  first  written  out  or  whether 
spoken  directly  from  the  outline,  the  author's 
mind  should  be  left  free  for  the  elaboration  of  his 
argument,  step  by  step,  the  framework  having 
been  completed  in  advance.  Especially  is  this  the 
case  in  extemporaneous  debating;  for  any  one  can 


THE    BRIEF  179 

learn  to  speak  extempore  if  he  knows  in  advance 
the  order  and  substance  of  what  he  wishes  to  say. 
Finally,  an  outline  is  necessary  in  order  to  make  the 
argument  clear  to  others.  Especially  in  debate, 
the  foundation  and  framework  in  the  structure 
of  the  speaker's  argument  must  be  made  clear  to 
the  hearers.  They  must  in  some  way  be  made  to 
see  the  structure — by  means  of  an  occasional  ''first," 
"secondly,"  and  "thirdly,"  or  other  means  of 
identification;  and  the  speaker  cannot  well  make 
the  structure  apparent  to  his  audience  unless  he 
has  previously  made  an  outline  for  himself. 

Different  Kinds  of  Outlines. — There  are  all  sorts 
of  outlines,  from  the  exceedingly  meager  and  frag- 
mentary form,  consisting  in  mere  head-lines  or  catch- 
words, to  an  elaborate  statement  covering  all  ma- 
terial points.  The  first  type  may  be  illustrated  by 
the  following  brief  prepared  by  Lincoln  for  his  argu- 
ment in  a  case  to  recover  for  the  widow  of  a  Revo- 
lutionary soldier  two  hundred  dollars  which  had 
been  retained  by  the  defendant  out  of  four  hundred 
dollars  awarded  the  widow  as  pension  money: 

No  contract — Not  professional  services — Unreason- 
able charge — Money  retained  by  Deft  not  given  to 
Pl'ff — Revolutionary  War — Describe  Valley  Forge  pri- 
vations— Pl'ff 's  husband — Soldier  leaving  home  for 
army— Skin  Deft — Close.1 

This  outline  served  Lincoln's  purpose,  no  doubt, 
but  it  would  be  almost  useless  to  any  one  except 

1  Lewis,  Specimens  of  the  Forms  of  Discourse,  p.  233. 


x8o  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

the  writer,  and  it  is  altogether  too  meager  for  a 
comprehensive  and  closely  related  argument.  The 
type  of  the  other  extreme — the  full  outline — is 
found  in  the  ordinary  legal  brief.  A  brief,  in  law, 
"is  a  document,  prepared  by  counsel  as  a  basis  for 
oral  argument  of  a  cause  in  an  appellate  court, 
containing  a  statement  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
questions  in  controversy  upon  the  appeal  arise; 
of  the  facts  of  the  case  so  far  as  they  relate  to  these 
questions;  a  specification  on  the  part  of  the  plain- 
tiff in  error  or  appellant  of  the  errors  alleged  to 
have  been  committed  by  the  court  below,  upon 
which  reversal  is  asked  for;  and  a  brief  of  the  ar- 
gument, consisting  of  the  propositions  of  law  or 
fact  to  be  maintained,  the  reasons  upon  which  they 
are  based,  and  citation  of  authorities  in  their  sup- 
port."1 A  brief  in  debate  has  all  the  essential 
features  comprehended  in  this  definition,  but  it 
need  not  contain  quite  so  full  and  detailed  state- 
ments as  a  brief  in  law  since  a  debate-brief  al- 
ways presupposes  a  subsequent  expansion,  either 
written  or  oral,  while  a  legal  brief  often  takes  the 
place,  by  agreement  of  counsel,  of  any  oral  argu- 
ment. On  the  other  hand,  an  outline  consisting 
of  mere  head-lines  is  insufficient.  With  a  view  of 
criticism  by  the  teacher,  the  student's  brief,  it 
should  be  remembered,  is  to  inform  a  reader,  as 
well  as  the  writer,  of  the  author's  analysis  of  the 
question  and  of  all  the  proof  upon  which  he  relies. 
It  is  a  composition  in  itself,  containing  all  that 

1  Abbott,  Brief-making  and  tlte  Use  of  Law-Bookst  p.  5. 


THE    BRIEF  181 

part  of  the  complete  argument  which  is  essential  for 
a  successful  appeal  to  the  intellect,  and  lacks  only 
complete  rhetorical  form  and  the  element  of  per- 
suasion. 

A  brief  in  debate,  then,  is  a  condensed  written 
argument,  covering  every  essential  step  in  the 
proof,  and  so  arranged  that  the  leading  and  the 
supporting  arguments  are  clearly  indicated. 

GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    A    GOOD    BRIEF 

The  main  features  of  a  good  brief  are  (i)  Clear- 
ness, (2)  Coherence,  and  (3)  Unity. 

i.  Clearness. — However  desirable  perfect  clear- 
ness may  be  in  other  forms  of  composition,  in 
argumentation  it  is  absolutely  indispensable.  Re- 
membering always  that  the  brief  is  the  outline- 
plan  for  the  subsequent  complete  argument,  it  is 
essential  that  it  be  so  constructed  that  the  reader — 
and  hence  later  the  hearer — may  readily  follow 
you.  And  yet  the  average  beginner  in  brief - 
writing  constantly  disregards,  in  actual  practice, 
this  fundamental  principle. 

The  first  requisite  of  clearness  is,  of  course, 
clear  thought  on  the  part  of  the  writer.  If  your 
own  thoughts  are  muddy,  you  can  hardly  expect 
them  to  be  clear  in  the  brief.  You  must  have  an 
unobstructed  view  of  the  whole  course  of  the  argu- 
ment, from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  proof. 
But  more  than  this,  particular  care  must  be  exer- 
cised in  the  phrasing  in  order  to  make  the  brief 
clear  to  a  reader  and  to  the  average  hearer.  We 
13 


182  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

say  to  the  average  hearer,  because  after  a  student 
has  made  special  study  of  a  question,  many  points 
that  are  very  apparent  to  his  own  mind  might  not 
appear  so  clear  to  one  who  has  made  no  special 
study  of  the  subject.  In  the  phrasing  of  your 
proof,  then,  avoid  complex  statements  and  aim  for 
simplicity,  directness,  and  conciseness. 

2.  Coherence. — Not  only  must  an  argument  be 
clear,  as  to  the  whole  and  as  to  all  its  parts,  but 
the  whole  must  hang  together  and  the  parts  adhere 
to  the  whole  and  to  one  another:  the  argument 
must  be  coherent.  The  two  principal  elements  of 
coherence  are  subordination  and  sequence.  We 
have  seen  that  any  question  for  debate  will  resolve 
itself  into  certain  issues  that  need  chiefly  to  be 
proved  in  order  to  prove  the  proposition;  and 
that  other  subordinate  issues,  with  all  the  evidence 
in  the  case,  merely  go  to  support  these  main  issues. 
Coherency  requires  that  these  main  issues  be  em- 
phasized in  the  argument,  and  that  related  issues 
be  subordinated — that  is,  that  in  the  welding  to- 
gether— the  cohering — of  the  whole  argument  the 
evidentiary  and  supporting  material  be  grouped 
about  the  main  issues. 

By  sequence,  as  an  element  of  coherency,  is 
meant  that  all  steps  in  the  proof  naturally  and 
logically  lead  to  and  follow  one  another.  This 
applies  to  the  main  divisions  of  the  whole  argu- 
ment and  to  the  proof  that  supports  each  main 
division.  In  the  development  of  the  proof  care 
should  be  exercised  to  avoid  arbitrary  and  abrupt 
changes;  the  transitions  from  one  part  of  the 


THE    BRIEF  183 

proof  to  another  should  be  smooth  and  natural. 
It  is  a  problem  in  classification  and  arrangement, 
which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  discuss  further  in 
connection  with  other  phases  of  brief-writing. 

3.  Unity. — Lastly,  a  brief  should  conform  to  the 
law  of  unity.  In  the  first  place,  analogous  to  the 
rhetorical  law  of  the  paragraph,  each  main  division 
of  the  argument  should  make  a  single  impression 
upon  the  mind  of  the  reader — to- wit,  the  proof  of 
the  issue  which  is  the  subject  of  that  division; 
and  then,  all  these  main  divisions  should  in  turn 
produce  but  a  single  impression — to- wit,  the  proof 
of  the  main  proposition.  Here  again  due  em- 
phasis will  aid  materially  in  the  attainment  of 
unity;  and  the  proper  co-ordination  of  the  proof 
material,  later  discussed,  will  serve  as  a  check 
against  the  scattering  effect  of  many  arguments. 

THE    MAIN    DIVISIONS    OF    A    BRIEF 

Whatever  may  be  the  absolute  requirements  in 
other  kinds  of  composition,  a  brief  in  debate  must 
always  include  the  threefold  division  of  an  intro- 
duction, the  proof  or  argument  proper,  and  a  con- 
clusion. Inasmuch  as  the  brief  is  to  include  every 
essential  feature  of  the  complete  argument,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  question  the 
argument  of  which  would  be  complete  if  any  of 
these  three  divisions  were  omitted.  Any  question 
for  debate  will  require  some  introductory  explana- 
tion and  exposition  and  some  indication  of  the 
proof  required,  before  entering  upon  the  argument 


i84  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

proper.  The  argument,  or  proof,  is  of  course 
necessary.  And  the  cumulative  force  of  the  proof 
is  lost  without  a  conclusion  to  reinforce  and  bind 
the  whole  together.  Let  us  now  consider  these  three 
main  divisions  of  a  brief  in  some  detail,  all  the  time 
bearing  in  mind  that  the  brief  is  to  be  the  founda- 
tion for  the  subsequent  written  or  oral  argument. 

The  Introduction. — The  function  of  the  in- 
troduction is  to  prepare  the  minds  of  the  audience 
for  the  subsequent  argument  by  presenting  all  facts 
and  explanations  necessary  for  understanding  the 
question,  pointing  out  the  issues  in  the  discussion, 
and  outlining  the  proof  as  to  those  issues.  An 
introduction  will  vary  in  length  and  explanatory 
details,  of  course,  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
question.  It  should  include,  in  addition  to  a 
statement  of  the  proposition,  a  bibliography,  and 
an  outline  of  the  proof,  the  results  of  the  pre- 
liminary analysis  of  the  question.  For  the  purpose 
of  an  orderly  and  uniform  mode  of  procedure,  and 
also  as  a  guard  against  superficial  work,  let  the 
student  write  out  his  introduction  by  following 
these  steps: 

1.  Statement  of  the  Question. — For  the  benefit  of 
the  critic,  indicate  at  the  outset  whether  you  have 
the  affirmative  or  negative. 

2.  Bibliography. — State  (a)  the  books  or  general 
treatises,  and  (b)  the  periodicals  and  special  arti- 
cles you  have  actually  consulted,  with  specific  ref- 
erence to  title,   author,  volume,   and  page.     The 
purpose  of  this  is,  first,  for  future  reference,  and, 
secondly,  to  inform  the  critic  just  what  reading 


THE    BRIEF  185 

has  been  done  in  the  investigation  of  the  question; 
thereby  further  references  can  often  be  suggested. 
It  is  to  be  understood  that  the  bibliography  at  this 
point  is  not  to  take  the  place  of  specific  references 
to  authorities  in  the  body  of  the  brief,  whenever 
the  citation  of  authority  is  needed  to  substantiate 
any  particular  statement. 

3 .  Origin  and  History  of  the  Question. — This  should 
consist  of  a  statement  showing  why  .the  question 
is  being  discussed  at  this  time,  and  a  brief  histori- 
cal sketch  that  will  serve  as  a  background  for  your 
argument.     But  this  introductory  statement  should 
be  non-argumentative — merely  a  plain  statement 
of  facts  that  either  side  can  use  as  introductory  to 
the  subsequent  argument. 

4.  Definition  of  the  Question. — Words  and  phrases 
that  are  not  absolutely  clear  to  the  audience  should 
be  defined  and  explained;    but  do  not  define  per- 
fectly obvious  terms.     Then,  when  necessary,  de- 
fine the  question  as  a  whole. 

5.  Irrelevant  Matter. — State  briefly  what  is  not 
properly  included  in  the  discussion  of  this  ques- 
tion, and  hence  will  be  considered  irrelevant. 

6.  Admitted  Matter. — This  step  requires  an  answer 
to  the  question,  What  matters  connected  with  the 
proposition  can  both  sides  properly  and  profitably 
admit? 

7.  Contentions  of  Both  Sides. — Contrast  the  con- 
tentions of  the  affirmative  side  with  those  of  the 
negative.     Such  statement  will  reveal  the  "clash 
of  opinion"  from  which  may  be  deduced  the  main 
issues. 


186  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

8.  The  Issues. — As  a  result  of  the  preceding  steps 
in  analysis,  what  are  the  main  issues  which,  if 
proved,  will  decide  the  question?  In  other  words, 
what  are  the  main  points  you  intend  proving  in 
this  discussion?  These  points  should  be  stated 
as  the  main  headings  in  the  proof,  or  argument 
proper. 

In  many  questions  little  or  no  attention  will  be 
needed  to  some  of  the  foregoing  points.  When 
the  question  is  an  unusual  or  intricate  one,  all  the 
preceding  headings  will  need  to  be  carefully  con- 
sidered and  filled  out.  If,  however,  the  question 
relates  to  some  topic  of  current  discussion,  the 
origin  and  history  of  the  question  may  be  known 
to  all.  But  in  many  questions  of  the  day  a  pre- 
liminary statement  of  the  facts  in  the  case  is  neces- 
sary in  order  to  get  the  bearings  for  one's  proof. 
For  instance,  take  the  much-discussed  question  of 
the  Adamson  law,  creating  an  eight-hour  working- 
day  for  trainmen.  This  would  require  an  exposi- 
tion which  seeks  to  justify  the  eight-hour  working- 
day,  and  a  narration  of  the  events  leading  up  to 
the  present  agitation.  Again,  the  terms  in  the 
question  may  be  plainly  self-defining,  and  there 
may  be  no  special  points  for  designation  as  ir- 
relevant or  admitted  matter.  All  such  questions 
the  student  will  need  to  ask  himself  as  he  takes 
up  seriatim  the  points  to  be  considered  in  the 
introduction. 

One  other  point  as  to  the  introduction :  it  should 
be  wholly  non-partisan.  Aside  from  such  favorable 
impression  of  your  side  as  may  be  created  from 


THE    BRIEF  187 

the  analysis  of  the  question,  reserve  all  argument 
until  you  come  to  the  argument  proper.  Other- 
wise you  overstep,  in  the  first  place,  the  bounds 
of  an  introduction,  and  furthermore,  you  are  much 
more  apt  to  prejudice  your  case  than  to  help  it. 
Aristotle  says,  ''Argumentation  has  but  two  es- 
sential parts — the  statement  of  the  case  and  the 
proof."  The  statement  of  the  case  is  exposition, 
and  the  more  purely  expository  it  is  the  stronger 
will  be  its  effect.  The  very  purpose  of  an  argu- 
ment— conviction — assumes  that  there  are  minds 
to  be  convinced;  and  a  partisan  and  prejudicial 
introduction  only  defeats  its  own  object. 

The  writings  and  speeches  of  masters  in  debate 
will  show  their  appreciation  of  the  necessity  of  keep- 
ing an  introduction  free  from  all  signs  of  prejudice 
and  unfairness. 

Proof. — Some  authors  call  this  division  the  "Ar- 
gument," or  "Brief  Proper."  The  term  "Proof " 
is  here  used  to  include  argument  and  evidence, 
being  consistent  with  its  use  through  the  text.  Two 
matters  claim  our  attention — the  order  and  the  form 
of  presentation. 

Order  of  the  Proof. — The  order  in  which  argu- 
ments are  to  be  presented  is  a  very  important 
matter,  and  yet  to  lay  down  detailed  rules  there- 
for would  be  extremely  dangerous.  Much  must 
depend  upon  the  nature  of  the  question  and  the 
character  and  temper  of  the  audience.  Ordinarily, 
an  argument  should  open  with  direct  proof  rather 
than  with  refutation;  this  to  avoid  emphasizing 
the  idea  of  your  being  on  the  defensive.  First 


i88  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

make  out  at  least  a  prima  facie  case  by  constructive 
argument.  A  speaker  on  the  negative  may,  of 
course,  need  to  refute  a  strong  argument  against 
him  at  the  very  beginning,  but  it  is  often  quite  as 
well,  by  brief  reference,  to  postpone  it  to  its  natural 
place  in  connection  with  the  presentation  of  the 
constructive  argument.  The  direct  proof  first 
presented  should  be  strong  and  cogent  for  the 
audience  addressed — sometimes,  it  may  be,  even 
startling.  Generally,  the  argument  of  antecedent 
probability  should  come  first,  for  this  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  essentially  preparatory  in  its  nature. 
Having  made  out  a  probable  case,  the  minds  of 
the  hearers  are  then  prepared  to  receive  the  more 
positive  proof.  Again,  it  is  a  psychological  law 
that  the  opening  and  closing  of  any  speech,  or 
divisions  of  a  speech,  are  the  strongest  places— 
the  places  of  greatest  emphasis.  The  first  and 
final  impressions  are  the  most  lasting.  Acting  on 
this  principle,  the  successful  trial  lawyer  makes 
much  of  the  opening  of  his  case — the  preliminary 
statements  of  facts  to  the  jury.  It  is  better,  then, 
as  a  general  rule,  to  have  the  relatively  weaker 
arguments  in  the  middle,  buttressed  by  the  stronger 
on  either  side.  And  whenever  you  know  there  is 
a  strong  argument  that  is  bound  to  be  presented 
against  you,  it  is  well  to  follow  up  the  opening  by 
a  refutation  of  such  argument;  that  is,  do  not 
leave  palpably  strong  arguments  against  you  to 
be  dealt  with,  in  the  first  instance,  by  your  op- 
ponent. 

Further  than  the  foregoing  general  suggestions, 


THE    BRIEF  189 

little  can  be  said  of  any  real  value  as  to  the  best 
ordering  of  proof.  The  particular  question  must 
always  determine  that,  and  an  ounce  of  brief  - 
writing  will  be  worth  pounds  of  theory.  How- 
ever, the  following  general  types  of  outlines  of 
different  classes  of  questions  may  be  suggestive  as 
to  ways  of  setting  about  the  preparation  of  an 
argument : 

1.  A  Question  of  Fact. — A  is  guilty  of  murder. 
I.  It  is  antecedently  probable  that  he  committed 
the  act,  for  he  had  a  motive  for  so  doing.     II.  He 
is  shown  to  be  guilty  by  (A)  direct  testimony,  and 
(B)  facts  which  are  the  effects  of  his  act,  and  which 
cannot  be  otherwise  explained.     III.  This  act  the 
law  makes  a  murder.     A.  Moral  reasons  why  it 
should.     B.  The   statutes  make  it   such,   for   (i) 
they  make  x  a  crime,  and  this  act  is  x;    and  (2) 
authorities  sustain  this  contention. 

2.  A  Question  of  Policy. — I.  The  proposed  plan 
should  be  adopted.     A.  It  is  antecedently  reason- 
able that  a  reform  is  urgent.     B.  The  proposed 
plan  is  expedient,  for  x,  y,  and  z  are  needed,  and 
it  will  supply  these  needs.     C.  It  has  worked  well 
elsewhere,  and  will  work  well  in  the  present  case, 
wherein  the  conditions  are  similar.     D.  There  is 
no  better  plan. 

Form. — By  way  of  preface,  it  is  to  be  borne  in 
mind  that  everything  of  probative  value  for  the 
finished  argument  is  to  be  included  in  the  brief, 
and  only  incidental  illustrations,  amplifying  sen- 
tences, and  purely  persuasive  material  are  to  be 
omitted.  In  a  brief,  as  in  argument  generally, 


ipo  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

there  should  be  no  assertion  without  proof.  In 
adopting  any  scheme  for  the  statement  of  the 
proof,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  again,  that  the  brief 
is  for  a  reader  as  well  as  for  the  writer,  and  that 
any  one  of  various  methods  might  be  adopted,  so 
that,  for  the  practical  purposes  of  class  work,  a 
uniform  method  be  used.  Further,  it  is  a  good 
training  in  habits  of  method  and  orderliness  gen- 
erally if  the  student  is  required  to  follow  rigidly 
some  one  plan  of  arrangement  in  briefing  his  argu- 
ment. To  these  ends,  the  following  method  is 
recommended. 

Arrange  the  proof  in  two  parallel  columns, 
respectively  designated  "Arguments"  and  "Evi- 
dence." Next,  divide  your  arguments  into  a  num- 
ber of  main  propositions.  Then  pick  out  the  state- 
ments that  support  each  of  these  main  propositions ; 
then  the  arguments  that  support  these  statements 
—and  so  on  down  to  the  smallest  necessary  detail 
of  evidence.  The  main  propositions  should  read 
as  reasons  for  the  proposition  which  is  the  subject 
for  debate,  and  subheadings  and  sub-subheadings 
in  each  group  should  read  as  reasons  for  the  head- 
ing next  above  them.  The  subheadings  should  be 
arranged,  of  course,  in  the  order  of  climax — the 
strongest  argument  last — unless  this  arrangement 
violates  the  logical  order.  Again,  every  heading 
in  the  argument  should  be  a  complete  sentence. 
This  will  conduce  to  clearness.  A  word  or  phrase 
conveys  no  specific  idea  to  a  reader,  or,  in  any 
event,  it  might  convey  a  meaning  foreign  to  the 
writer's  intention.  Moreover,  a  complete  sentence 


THE    BRIEF  191 

is  far  more  apt  to  make  the  argument  clear  to  the 
writer  himself.  A  sentence  usually  means  some- 
thing, "and  it  usually  means  approximately  what 
the  writer  has  in  mind."  And  almost  always  it 
should  be  a  simple  sentence.  Compound  and  com- 
plex sentences  are  to  be  avoided.  At  any  rate, 
each  heading  should  state  but  a  single  argument; 
a  strict  adherence  to  this  rule  will  avoid  confusion 
and  a  lack  of  co-ordination  in  the  proof.  As  a 
further  aid  to  clearness  and  coherency,  indent  all 
subheadings  in  a  uniform  manner  about  an  inch 
to  the  right  of  the  heading  next  above  them,  and 
use  a  uniform  system  of  denotation  of  the  head- 
ings; as  (a)  Roman  numerals,  (6)  capital  letters, 
(c)  Arabic  numerals,  (d)  initial  small  letters, 
then  (i),  (a),  etc.  And  further,  make  the  connec- 
tion clear  between  any  proposition  and  the  state- 
ments which  support  it  by  appropriate  conjunc- 
tions— "for,"  "because,"  etc. 

In  the  column  headed  "Evidence"  and  parallel 
to  the  arguments  in  the  first  column,  write  the 
evidence,  the  facts,  which  support  your  arguments 
presented  in  the  argument  column.  Here  should 
come  all  your  data,  or  at  least  the  most  essential 
evidence  that  you  can  secure:  statistics,  facts, 
quotations — all  that  the  debater  desires  to  submit 
to  prove  his  inferences.  The  first  column  stands 
or  falls  by  the  data  tabulated  in  the  second  column. 
The  sources  of  all  evidence,  with  the  specific  refer- 
ences, should  be  given  in  each  case. 

One  advantage  of  this  plan  is  that  the  second 
column  relieves  the  ordinary  brief  of  a  mass  of 


192  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

material  usually  jumbled  together  in  such  a  manner 
that  it  is  of  little  service  to  the  debater.  Secondly, 
it  acts  as  a  classified  storehouse  of  material  for  the 
speaker  when  he  writes  his  debate,  or  when  he  pre- 
pares it  extempore.  Thirdly,  it  presents  an  ob- 
jective and  conspicuous  array  of  data  to  show  that 
the  arguments  are  not  mere  fancies,  but  are  sup- 
ported by  facts  or  other  convincing  material.  It 
is  a  great  preventer  of  the  "I  think"  kind  of  de- 
bating. When  the  student  begins  briefing  on  this 
plan  the  evidence  column  will  appear  as  though  a 
cyclone  had  passed  down  the  column,  leaving  a 
few  scattered  facts  in  its  wake;  but  after  a  little 
experience  the  student  soon  learns  to  support  his 
arguments  with  data  that  definitely  substantiate 
his  contentions. 

The  Conclusion. — The  function  of  the  conclusion, 
so  far  as  the  brief  is  concerned,  is  to  state  concisely 
the  steps  by  which  the  decision  is  reached.  It 
should  contain  no  new  proof,  but  simply  a  brief 
summary  of  the  argument.  Ordinarily,  it  need 
recapitulate  no  further  than  the  main  proposi- 
tions and  the  first  series  of  supporting  propo- 
sitions— the  I,  II,  III  .  .  .  and  A,  B,  C  .  .  .  headings. 

Finally,  it  should  be  understood  that  a  debate 
or  a  forensic  need  not  necessarily  include  all  the 
detailed  facts  and  arguments  that  are  contained 
in  a  good  brief;  that  the  brief  is  but  the  frame- 
work on  which  to  build  the  discourse;  that  some 
of  this  framework  is  only  scaffolding  which  was 
not  intended  to  be  incorporated  into  the  finished 
structure;  and  that  many  details  not  in  the  brief 


THE    BRIEF  193 

will  be  necessary  in  the  completed  forensic  or  speech 
in  order  to  make  it  convincing  and  persuasive. 


RULES    FOR   BRIEF-WRITING 

1.  A  brief,  being  a  condensed  written  argument, 
should  cover  every  material  point  in  proving  the 
proposition. 

2.  The  brief  should  be  divided  into  three  main 
parts,  Introduction,  Proof,  and  Conclusion. 

3.  The  Introduction  to  a  brief  should  include  a 
clear  exposition  of  the  preliminary  analysis  of  the 
question,  with  no  argument. 

4.  The  Proof  should  be  divided  into  two  parts, 
Arguments  and  Evidence. 

5.  The  Argument,   or  Proof,   should   show   the 
chain  of  reasoning  by  stating  the  proof  in  a  series 
of  propositions,  with  appropriate  subheadings  and 
connectives. 

6.  Each  heading  should  be  in  the  form  of  a  com- 
plete sentence. 

7.  Each   heading   should   contain   but   a   single 
argument. 

8.  Main  headings  must  read  as  reasons  for  the 
Conclusion. 

9.  Subheadings  must  read  as  reasons  for  the  head- 
ing under  which  they  are  grouped. 

10.  Indicate  correlations  in  the  following  order: 
(i)  Roman  numerals,  (2)  capital  letters,  (3)  Arabic 
numerals,  (4)  initial  small  letters,  (5)  (i),  (2),  (3)  .  .  . 
(6)  (a),  (b),  (c)  .  .  . 

11.  The  correlations  should  be  regularly  indented. 


i94  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

12.  Connect  each  proposition  with  subordinate 
headings     by     proper     connectives  —  "because," 
"since,"  "for,"  etc. 

13.  The    "Evidence"    column   should   be   filled 
with  facts  that  directly  support  the  argument,  with 
statement  of  source. 

14.  The  Conclusion  should  contain  a  brief  sum- 
mary of  the  whole  argument. 


SPECIMEN    BRIEF 

(The  following  brief  is  submitted  as  a  "speci- 
men," not  as  a  model.  The  bibliography  is  by  no 
means  exhaustive,  not  all  possible  lines  of  argu- 
ments are  included,  and  many  details  of  evidence 
and  proof  bearing  on  the  enumerated  arguments 
are  omitted.  The  brief  is  intended  primarily  to 
furnish  a  model  as  to  form  of  arrangement.) 

Question. — Resolved,  that  the  several  States  should  estab- 
lish a  schedule  of  minimum  wages  for  unskilled  laborers* 
constitutionality  conceded. 

Bibliography. — The  Standard  of  Living  in  the  United 
States,  by  Frank  Streightoff.  Wages  in  the  United 
States,  by  Scott  Nearing.  A  Living  Wage,  by  John  A. 
Ryan.  Organized  Labor,  by  John  Mitchell.  Standard 
of  Living  Among  Workmen's  Families  in  New  York 
City,  by  R.  C.  Chapin.  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reform, 
by  W.  D.  P.  Bliss.  Industrial  Democracy,  by  Sidney 
Webb.  Report  to  the  British  Parliament,  by  Ernest 
Aves.  Statistics  and  Economics,  by  Mayo-Smith. 
Labor  in  Australia,  by  Victor  S.  Clark. 

American  Economic  Review,  14:  188-201.  American 
Journal  of  Sociology,  17:  303-314.  Atlantic  Monthly, 


THE    BRIEF  195 

112:  289-297;  41:  533-539-  Forum,  28:  542-553; 
49-  576-584.  Independent,  70:  806-807;  74:  851; 
75:  459-460.  Living  Age,  273:  370-372,  451-461.  Na- 
tion, 96:  274;  350-351.  Nineteenth  Century,  64:  507— 
524;  72:  264-274;  73:  644-658.  Outlook,  73:  721- 
725;  88:314-317;  98:448-453;  102:  159-160;  103: 
52-54,  705-707.  American  Review  of  Reviews,  45: 
442;  47:  216-217;  48:  84-90.  Survey,  23:  577- 
578;  24:  810-820;  25:  789-792,  815-816;  26:  32- 
33;  27:  1623-1624;  28:  lo-n,  313-314,  454-455; 
29:  74-76,  552-555,  653-654;  30:  4-5,9-10.  United 
States  Bureau  of  Labor  Bulletin.  No.  10:  60-78;  20: 
86-87.  Westminster  Review,  145:  297-300;  152:628- 
640;  154:398-412;  172:623-631. 


INTRODUCTION 

i.  Origin  and  History  of  the  Question. — This  ques- 
tion has  recently  been  embodied  in  bills  introduced 
into  nearly  every  State  legislature.  The  ratio  be- 
tween what  the  unskilled  worker  produces  and 
what  he  receives,  and  this,  in  turn,  to  the  cost 
of  living,  is  being  discussed  in  every  section  of  our 
country.  This  question  is  directly  related  to 
the  national,  social,  and  economic  unrest,  and  its 
proper  solution  will  affect  the  welfare  of  our  twenty 
millions  of  unskilled  workmen.  It  is  not  a  new 
question,  since  history  shows  that  a  minimum  wage 
was  established  in  ancient  Babylon.  It  was  intro- 
duced into  Spain  under  the  reign  of  King  Philip, 
applying  to  minors  only.  In  modern  times,  the 
first  minimum-wage  law  was  established  in  Bel- 
gium in  1887.  New  Zealand  followed  in  1895,  and 


196  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

Australia  the  next  year.  In  1910  England  placed 
a  minimum- wage  law  on  four  industries,  and  has 
since  extended  it  to  six  more.  Austria,  France,  and 
Germany  have  recently  seriously  considered  the 
enactment  of  such  a  law.  In  the  United  States, 
Massachusetts  and  Nebraska  each  adopted  a  wage 
law  in  1912;  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Utah,  Oregon, 
Washington,  California,  and  Colorado  enacted  such 
a  law  in  1913;  and  Arkansas  in  1915. 

2.  Definition. — "Several    States"    denotes    each 
State    separately.     "  Schedule"     means    different 
rates  for  different  industries  and  different  condi- 
tions   of    employment.     "Minimum    wage"    is    a 
wage  below  which  an  employer  may  not  pay  his 
workmen.     An    "unskilled    laborer"    is    a    man, 
woman,    or  child  whose  employment  requires  no 
special  previous  preparation  or  apprenticeship. 

3.  Irrelevant  Matter. — (i)  For  the  purpose  of  this 

debate  it  is  immaterial  as  to  what  method 
a  State  may  employ  in  establishing  and 
enforcing  a  minimum- wage  schedule. 
(2)    The  number  of  industries  involved  in  each 
State  is  not  essential  to  this  discussion. 

4.  Admitted  Matter. — Both  sides  admit: 

(1)  The  welfare  of  our  industrial  classes  is  of 
vital    importance    to    the    future    of    our 
nation. 

(2)  Any  considerable  increase  in  the  nation's 
unemployed  would  present  another  grave 
economic  problem. 

(3)  "Sweated"     industries     and     "parasitic" 
trades  should  be  abolished. 


THE   BRIEF  197 

(4)    The  State  has  a  right  to  prescribe  a  mini- 
mum wage. 

5.  Contested   Matter. — The    following    questions 
raise  special  issues  whereon  there  is  a  clash  of  opin- 
ion between  the  affirmative  and  the  negative: 

(1)  Will  a  minimum- wage  law  materially  in- 
crease the  number  of  unemployed? 

(2)  Will  a  minimum  wage  materially  increase 
the  cost  of  production? 

(3)  Will    the   minimum   tend   to   become   the 
maximum  wage? 

(4)  Do    unskilled    workmen    earn    more    than 
they  receive? 

(5)  Does  not  the  law  of  supply  and  demand 
regulate  wages? 

(6)  Will  a  nominal  wage  increase  be  a  total 
increase  in  wages  paid? 

(7)  Will  the  average  workman  raise  his  stand- 
ard of  living  when  given  a  higher  wage? 

(8)  Will  a  minimun  wage  not  over-stimulate 
immigration  ? 

(9)  Will  a  minimum-wage  law  drive  industry 
from  the  State? 

(10)  Does  experience  with  the  minimum- wage 
system  justify  its  adoption  by  the  several 
States? 

6.  Main  Issues. — The  main  issues  that  the  Affirm- 

ative will  attempt  to  prove  are: 

I.  The  present  wage  situation  has  in  it  cer- 
tain evils  which  should  be  remedied. 

II.  A  minimum- wage  law  is  an  adequate  and 
desirable  remedy  for  these  evils. 


HOW    TO    DEBATE 


III.  A    minimum- wage    law    is    practicable    in 
operation. 


PROOF 


ARGUMENTS 


EVIDENCE 


I.  The  present  wage  situation 
has  in  it  certain  evils  which 
should  be  remedied,  for, 

A.  A    majority    of    the    un- 
skilled laborers  in  the  United 
States  are  receiving  less  than 
a  living  wage. 

B.  This   is   not    due    to    the 
nation's       unproductiveness, 
for, 

1.  Per-capita  wealth  is  in- 
creasing. 

2.  The  distribution  is  un- 
just, for, 

a.  The  ratio  between  the 
rich  and  the  poor  is  in- 
creasing. 

b.  The    laborer    is    not 
receiving  what  he  earns. 


Doctor  Chapin  estimates  a  liv- 
ing wage  to  be  $650.  (Standard 
of  Living,  p.  166.) 

Anything  less  than  $600  a 
year  is  not  a  living  wage.  (Ryan, 
A  Living  Wage,  p.  150.) 

Six  hundred  dollars  is  the  least 
a  family  can  live  on.  (Mitchell, 
Organized  Labor,  p.  118.) 

Ninety-two  thousand  men  in 
the  United  States  receive  less 
than  $3  weekly;  338,000  less 
than  $5  weekly;  1,116,000  less 
than  $8  weekly;  2,000,000  less 
than  $10  weekly;  3,000,000  less 
than  $12  weekly.  (Streightoff, 
The  Standard  of  Living  in  the 
United  States,  p.  65.) 

The  average  of  all  unskilled 
laborers  in  the  United  States 
is  $550.  The  average  for  men 
is  $600;  for  women,  $350;  for 
minors,  $200.  (Nearing,  Wages 
in  the  United  States,  p.  142.) 
•  Nation's  wealth:  In  1850  it 
was  $7,000,000,000;  in  1890, 
$65,000,000,000,  and  in  1915, 
$150,000,000,000.  (World  Al- 
manac for  191$,  p.  308.) 

Per-capita  wealth:  In  1850  it 
was  $130;  in  1900,  $820;  in 
1915,  $1,500. 

The  laborer  receives  only  20 
per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  prod- 
ucts he  creates.  (United  States 
Census,  1910,  Vol.  VII,  p.  31.) 


THE    BRIEF 


199 


ARGUMENTS 

C.  The    laborer    is    being    ex- 
ploited, for, 

i.  He    lacks    adequate    bar- 
gaining power,  for, 

a.  He  has  no  reserve  power, 
for, 

(l)  He  lives  from  hand 
to  mouth. 

b.  The    employer    has    re- 
serve power,  for, 

(l)  He  is  not  immediate- 
ly dependent  upon  the 
employee. 

c.  The !  laborer   is   obliged 
to  work  for  whatever  the 
employer  offers. 

d.  There    is    undercutting 
by  the  workers  themselves. 

e.  The  worker  lacks  knowl- 
edge   of    industrial    condi- 
tions. 

f.  He  is  too  poor  and  ig- 
norant to  organize. 

D.  Society     needs     protection, 
for, 

1.  Public    interests    are    in- 
jured by  labor  disputes  and 
resulting  strikes. 

2.  Society  loses  through  in- 
efficient workmen. 


II.  A  minimum- wage  law  would 
remedy  these  evils,  for, 

A.  It  is  sound  in  principle, 
for, 

i.  The  principle  of  mini- 
mums  is  generally  recog- 
nized. 


EVIDENCE 

One-eighth  of  the  families  in 
the  United  States  hold  seven- 
eighths  of  the  nation's  wealth; 
and  I  per  cent,  of  the  families 
hold  more  than  the  remaining 
99  per  cent.  (Spahr,  Distribu- 
tion of  Wealth  in  the  United 
States,  p.  69.) 


The  sweated  Corkers  cannot 
organize  because  they  are  so 
poor,  so  ignorant  and  so  weak., 
(Hobson,  Problems  of  Poverty, 
p.  227.) 

Between  the  years  1855  and 
1895  there  were  25,500  strikes 
in  the  United  States.  Sixty 
per  cent,  of  these  strikes  were 
caused  by  disputes  over  the 
question  of  inadequate  wages. 
(Saidler,  Boycotts  and  the  Labor 
Struggle,  p.  90.) 

Many  States  have  a  minimum 
wage  in  their  child-labor  laws. 
We  have  a  minimum  age  for 
compulsory  school  attendance. 
The  number  of  hours  of  em- 
ployment per  week  has  been 
limited  in  many  States. 


2OO 


HOW    TO    DEBATE 


ARGUMENTS 

2.  Wages    are    determined 
by  the  relative  bargaining 
power. 

3.  The  State  should  give  its 
citizens  an  opportunity  to 
earn  a  living,  rather  than 
to  feed  them  in  almshouses, 
penitentiaries,  etc. 


4.  It  is  the  only  remedy 
that  strikes  directly  at  the 
root  of  poverty. 

B.  It  would  benefit  the  laborer, 

for, 

1.  It  would  prevent  exploita- 
tion, for, 

a.  It  would  compel  the  em- 
ployer to  pay  a  living  wage. 

b.  It  would  make  freedom 
of  contract  an  actuality. 

2.  It  would  increase  his  effi- 
ciency, for, 

a.  Every  laborer  would  be 
stimulated  to  his  best  ef- 
fort to  retain  his  posi- 
tion. 


b.  It  would  give  him  great- 
er power  of  endurance. 


EVIDENCE 

Unorganized  employees  in  the 
Union  Stock  Yards  in  Chicago 
received  15  cents  per  hour.  A 
union  was  formed  and  the  wage 
was  raised  to  17  cents.  When 
the  union  was  destroyed  the 
wage  fell  to  15  cents  again. 
Girls  in  the  Walk  Over  Shoe  Co. 
received  $7  per  week.  After 
organizing  they  received  $9. 
St.  Paul,  Minnesota,  teamsters 
are  unorganized  and  receive 
$2.25  per  day;  in  Minneapolis 
they  are  organized  and  receive 
$2.75  per  day. 

The  minimum  wage  is  a  plan 
for  making  more  effective  the 
related  measures  of  social  re- 
form. It  is  the  only  remedy 
which  strikes  directly  at  the 
root  of  the  evil.  (Segar,  H.  R., 
in  Annals  of  American  Academy, 
Vol.  XL.,  p.  11.) 


The  National  Cash  Register 
Co.,  of  Dayton,  Ohio,  states 
that  by  adding  three  cents'  worth 
of  food  to  the  luncheon  of  each 
of  its  employees,  their  efficiency 
was  increased  five  cents'  worth 
in  actual  work. 

The  better-fed,  better-housed, 
healthier,  and  longer-lived  work- 
man is  more  efficient  as  labor- 
force  than  the  physically  weak 
and  half  starved.  (Mayo- 
Smith,  Statistics  and  Economics, 
P.  $6.) 


THE    BRIEF 


2OI 


ARGUMENTS 

3.  It  would  not  set  a  maxi- 
mum wage,  for, 

a.  Superior  workmen  would 
be  in  demand  the  same  as 
now. 

b.  Experience  verifies  this 
condition. 

C.  It  would  benefit  the  honest 
employer,  for, 

1.  It  would  protect  him  from 
underhand  competition. 

2.  It  would  give  him  a  more 
efficient  labor  force. 


3.  Employers  admit  the  ad- 
vantages to  them  of  a  mini- 
mum-wage law. 

D.  It  would  benefit  the  public, 

for, 

1.  It  would  insure  industrial 
peace. 

a.  By    preventing    strikes 
and  lockouts. 

b.  By  diminishing  the  in- 
centive for  crime  and  vice. 

2.  It  would  increase  the  la- 
borers' standard  of  living,  for, 

a.  Poverty    would    be    di- 
minished. 

b.  The      next      generation 
would  have  an  opportunity 
to  become  educated. 

c.  Real    homes    would    be 
established. 

3.  It     would     not     increase 
prices,  for, 


EVIDENCE 

In  Auckland  and  New  Zealand 
6 1  per  cent,  of  the  workmen  re- 
ceive more  than  the  minimum 
fixed  by  law.  (LeRessignal,  in 
Quar.  Jour,  of  Economics,  p.  708.) 

Of  the  12,000  women  wage- 
earners  coming  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  law,  we  have  not 
been  able  to  find  one  woman  or 
girl  who  was  drawing  $7.50  per 
week  at  the  time  the  law  went 
into  effect,  whose  wages  have 
been  decreased.  .  .  .  Ninety  per 
cent,  of  the  employers  in  Utah 
are  satisfied  with  the  law. 
(Hines,  H.  T.,  Report  of  the  Utah 
Minimum-wage  Law,  pp.  13-14.) 

Propertied  interests  were  not 
opposed  to  a  statutory  minimum- 
wage  law.  .  .  .  The  better  em- 
ployers rather  courted  some  pro- 
vision that  freed  them  from  com- 
petition of  the  less  scrupulous 
of  their  own  class.  (Clark,  Labor 
in  Australia,  pp.  141-147.) 


These  people  have  not  failed 
to  raise  their  standard  of  liv- 
ing with  sufficient  promptness 
whenever  their  remuneration 
has  been  increased.  (John  A. 
Ryan,  Personal  Letter  to  the 
Editor,  January  7,  1915.) 


It  apparently  has  not  in- 
creased the  cost  of  production. 
(Sidney  Webb,  Outlook,  Vol. 
CIIL,  p.  52.) 


202 


HOW    TO    DEBATE 


ARGUMENTS 

a.  The   increase   in   wages 
would  come  out  of: 

(1)  Present  monopoly 
profits. 

(2)  Present  excess  prof- 
its of  unscrupulous   em- 
ployers. 

(3)  Increased  managerial 
ability. 

b.  Experience  verifies  this 
contention. 


EVIDENCE 

There  is  little  testimony  that 
there  is  any  increase  in  the  cost 
of  production  or  selling  price; 
in  fact,  there  is  much  testimony 
to  the  contrary.  (Aves,  Report 
to  the  British  Parliament,  p.  71.) 

The  International  Harvester 
Co.  declares  an  annual  dividend 
of  1 2  X  per  cent.  Sears,  Roebuck 
&  Co.  makes  16  on  their  invest- 
ment. (Report  of  the  Federal 
Investigating  Committee.) 

All  manufacturers  receive  a 
net  profit  of  12^  Per  cent,  on 
the  money  invested.  (United 
States  Census,  Vol.  VII.,  p.  31.) 


III.  A   minimum- wage    law   is 
practicable  in  operation,  for, 
A.  It  has  been  successful  in: 

1.  Australia     for     twenty 
years. 

2.  England  for  five  years. 

3.  The  ten  American  States 
where  it  has  been  tried. 


B.  It  would  not  cause  an  in- 
crease of  unemployed,  for, 
I.  An    increase    of    wages 
would  result  in  an  increased 
demand  for  products. 


In  England  the  cost  of  pro- 
duction in  the  coal  business  was 
reduced  30  per  cent,  through  in- 
creased efficiency.  (J.  A.  Ryan, 
Survey,  Vol.  XXVIII.,  p.  10.) 

The  people  of  Australia  re- 
fused to  annul  the  law.  They 
have  re-enacted  it  five  times, 
extending  it  to  scores  of  in- 
dustries. Not  a  single  em- 
ployer or  employee  desires  to 
give  it  up.  (Aves,  Report  to  the 
British  Parliament.} 

The  measure  is  a  success  in 
Australia  and  New  Zealand  be- 
yond expectation.  (Clark,  Bu- 
reau of  Labor  Bulletin,  Vol. 
XLIX.,  p.  1255.) 

Wages  have  increased  and 
trade  has  thrived  under  it. 
(J.  J.  Mallon,  in  The  New 
Statesman,  February,  1910,  p. 
10.) 


THE    BRIEF  203 

ARGUMENTS  EVIDENCE 

2.  Men  would  largely  re-  The  average  man  at  $12  a 
place  women  and  children,  week  is  more  valuable  to  an 
3:  Experience  has  shown  employer  than  is  a  woman  at 
that  little  unemployment  $9,  or  even  $7.  For  this  reason 
has  resulted  from  a  mini-  men  would  take  the  place  of 
mum-wage  law.  women  at  the  higher  proposed 

wage.     (Henry  Siegel,  Outlook, 
Vol.  CHI.,  p.  706.) 

There  is  little  evidence  that 
irregularity  or  uncertainty  of 
employment  is  affected  by  the 
minimum  wage.  (Avei5,  Report 
to  the  British  Parliament,  p. 
476.) 


CONCLUSION 

I.  Since  the  present  wage  situation  in  the  United 
States  shows  that  a  majority  of  our  unskilled  labor- 
ers are  receiving  less  than  a  living  wage,  that  this 
is  not  due  to  the  nation's  unproductiveness,  that 
the  laborer  is  being  exploited,   and  that  society 
needs  protection  from  the  present  situation; 

II.  Since  a  minimum- wage  law  would  remedy 
these  evils  because  it  is  sound  in  principle    and 
because  it  would  benefit  the  laborer,  the  employer, 
and  the  public; 

III.  Since  a  minimum- wage  law  is  practicable  in 
operation,  as  shown  by  the  experience  of  Australia, 
New    Zealand,    England,    and    of    ten    American 
States; 

Therefore,  the  several  States  should  establish  a 
schedule  of  minimum  wages  for  unskilled  laborers. 


204  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

EXERCISES 

1.  Select  one  or  more  speeches  by  masters  in  debate — such  as 
Burke,  Webster,  Lincoln — and  let  the  student  cast  them  into 
the  form  of  a  brief.     (A  skeleton  brief  of  Burke's  speech  on 
"Conciliation  with  the  American  Colonies"  will  be  found  in 
Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory,  pages  340-342,  and  a  more 
detailed  outline  is  given  in  Denney's  edition  of  the  same  speech, 
pages  133-137-) 

2.  Let  the  students  criticize — and  rewrite,  it  may  be,  out- 
side of  class — the  following  bits  of  brief-writing,  taken  from 
students'  briefs: 

(a)  Proposition. — Resolved,  that  secret  societies  in  pub- 
lic schools  should  be  prohibited. 
Bibliography. — Report  of  the  University  of  Chicago, 
1904-05;  National  Education  Association;  Report 
of  Portland  (Maine)  School  Board;  Biannual  Report 
of  Public  Instruction  (Indiana),  1908. 
History. — High  school  fraternities  sprang  up  about 
twenty  years  ago,  and  were  patterned  after  college 
fraternities.  As  they  increased  in  number,  opposi- 
tion arose,  and  in  1904  President  Harper  of  the 
University  of  Chicago  set  on  foot  a  movement  against 
them.  A  number  of  States  have  legislated  them  from 
the  high  schools  of  their  State. 

Definition  of  Terms. — "Secret  societies"  mean  nation- 
al Greek-letter  societies,  including  those  for  boys 
and  those  for  girls.  They  include  such  societies  as 
are  patterned  after  the  Greek-letter  fraternities  and 
sororities  of  the  college.  "Prohibited"  means  that 
they  shall  be  entirely  suppressed  by  those  in  au- 
thority. 

Irrelevant  Matter. — Societies  under  faculty  control 
are  not  to  be  included  in  this  discussion. 
Admitted  Matter. — In  this  debate  both  sides  agree  that 
they  are  patterned  directly  after  the  college  societies. 
Issues. — (i)  Do  secret  societies  have  immoral  ten- 
4encie,s?  (2)  Do  they  promote  scholarship?  (3)  The 


THE    BRIEF  205 

evils  they  contain  can  only  be  checked  by  abolition. 
(4)  Do  school  authorities  have  a  legal  right  to  in- 
terfere with  societies  of  this  kind?  (5)  They  are  un- 
democratic. (6)  These  societies  should  be  regulated 
by  the  school  authorities. 

(b)  Resolved,  that  military  training  should  be  given  in 
the  American  high  schools. 

Bibliography— Century,  XLVII,  468-469;  XLVIII, 
318-319.  Education,  XV,  398-406;  XXX,  92-97. 
Independent,  LXXXI,  36;  LXXIV,  345-347.  Review 
of  Reviews,  49 134-36;  Everybody's,  32:179-83;  Nation, 
60: 270 

Origin  and  History. — The  Morrill  Act  of  1862  provided 
military  training  in  colleges  and  universities.  Fifty- 
two  land  grant  colleges  have  taken  advantage  of  this 
Act,  and  in  addition  sixteen  colored  schools.  During 
the  recent  discussion  of  national  defense  much  at- 
tention has  been  given  to  this  question. 
Definition  of  Terms. — By  "military  training"  is  meant 
the  study  of  military  tactics  and  suitable  military 
drill. 

Irrelevant  Matter. — (i)  Secondary  private  schools 
are  not  involved  in  this  question.  (2)  Whether  or 
not  it  should  be  a  substitute  for  the  athletic  training 
now  in  vogue. 

Admitted  Matter. — (i)  The  quality  and  amount  of  this 
training  are  not  to  be  discussed.  (2)  That  it  be  elec- 
tive or  compulsory. 

Issues. — (i)  Military  training  has  definite  educa- 
tional value.  (2)  It  increases  the  attendance.  (3) 
It  stimulates  patriotism.  (4)  More  trained  men  are 
needed  for  our  army.  (5)  The  plan  is  practical. 

(c)  Proposition:  Resolved,  that  the  United  States  should 
own  and  operate  her  railroads. 

Bibliography. — The  World  Almanac  and  Encyclo- 
pedia for  1915.  The  American  Year-Book  for  1915. 
Independent,  LXXX,  442.  Saturday  Evening  Post, 
June  6,  1914.  Atlantic  Monthly,  February,  1915. 


2o6  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

1.  Origin  and  History  of  the  Question. — Railroads  are 
owned  by  the  government  in  nearly  every  country 
in  the  world.     The  United  States  began  building  a 
line  in  Alaska  a  year  ago.     This  question  is  being  dis- 
cussed periodically  by  many  of  our  greatest  men. 

2.  Definition  of  Terms. — (None  necessary.) 

3.  Irrelevant  Matter. — Both  sides  desire  the  greatest 
efficiency  with  the  least  loss  of  life.     The  time  or  the 
manner  of  the  Government  securing  control  is  not 
a  matter  of  contention. 

4.  Admitted  Matter. — (i)  There  are  evils  in  our  pres- 
ent  system   of   railroad   management   which    need 
amelioration.     (2)  That  railroads  contain  a  great  deal 
of  watered  stock.     (3)  That  the  passenger  rates  on 
railroads  owned  and  operated  by  governments  in 
other  countries  are  cheaper  than  those  in  the  United 
States.     (4)  More  accidents  occur  on  the  railroads 
in  the  United  States  than  in  foreign  countries. 

5.  Issues. — (i)  Are  there  sufficient  evils  in  the  pres- 
ent system  so  that  a  change  is  desirable?     (2)  Would 
these  evils  be  remedied,  granting  that  they  exist,  by 
government  control?     (3)  Would  government  owner- 
ship lower  the  rates  or  make  the  service  more  efficient? 
(4)  Is  it  practicable?     (5)  Is  the  experience  of  for- 
eign nations  favorable  to  it? 


VIII 

PERSUASION 

SO  far  we  have  been  considering  chiefly  that 
part  of  debating  which  has  to  do  with  the  rea- 
soning processes,  which  is  directed  primarily  to 
the  mind,  and  results  in  conviction.  But  an  argu- 
ment which  appeals  only  to  the  understanding  may 
be  barren  of  results.  The  cold  logic  of  Brutus  was 
easily  overcome  by  the  persuasive  appeals  of 
Antony.  For  the  hearer  to  accept  your  reasoning 
is  one  thing,  but  for  him  to  cast  aside  his  prej- 
udices and  inertia  is  another  thing.  You  want 
him  to  accept  your  argument  in  fact  as  well  as  in 
theory;  in  other  words,  to  act  upon  it,  be  the 
action  expressed  in  the  verdict  of  a  jury,  by  a  vote 
in  a  deliberative  body,  or  by  any  other  line  of  con- 
duct. It  would  take  little  argument,  for  instance, 
to  convince  the  ordinary  citizen  that  he  should 
exercise  his  right  of  suffrage;  but  something  more 
might  be  needed  to  impel  him  to  go  to  the  polls 
on  a  particular  election  day.  That  part  of  debating 
which  wins  the  disposition  of  the  hearers,  directs 
motives,  arouses  emotions,  and  touches  the  springs 


HOW   TO    DEBATE 

of  action  is  called  persuasion.  The  importance  of 
persuasion  in  debate  cannot  be  overestimated,  for 
it  is  the  climax  of  all  argument  proper.  ' ' Is  it  not," 
says  Emerson,  "the  end  of  eloquence,  to  alter  in 
a  pair  of  hours,  perhaps  in  a  half-hour's  discourse, 
the  convictions  and  habits  of  years?"  And  yet, 
unlike  the  processes  of  pure  conviction,  the  sources 
of  persuasion  are  too  ill  defined  and  elusive  for  any 
systematic  treatment.  All  reasonable  men  reason 
substantially  alike.  But  men  act  from  different 
motives;  and  in  the  use  of  persuasion  in  debate 
much  must  depend  upon  the  individual  debater's 
tact  in  appreciating  the  particular  motives  that 
appertain  to  a  particular  audience. 

Generally  considered,  persuasion  has  its  source 
in  these  three  elements:  (i)  In  appeals  to  the 
emotions,  growing  out  of  the  argument  proper; 
(2)  in  the  rhetorical  qualities  of  spoken  discourse— 
how  a  thing  is  said;  and  (3)  in  the  delivery — the 
earnestness  and  personality  of  the  speaker. 

APPEALS   TO   THE    EMOTIONS 

All  the  elements  named  may  contribute,  of 
course,  in  appealing  to  the  emotions,  but  reference 
is  now  made  to  those  appeals  which  grow  out  of 
the  argument  proper.  For  any  lasting  effect,  ap- 
peals to  the  feelings  should  first  be  founded  on 
reason.  Otherwise,  such  appeals  are  merely  tran- 
sitory— they  cease  as  soon  as  the  emotions  aroused 
are  spent.  Further,  unless  conviction  either  pre- 
cedes or  accompanies  an  emotional  appeal,  the  lat- 


PERSUASION  209 

ter  is  usually  ineffective.  Such  is  the  case,  at 
least,  with  an  audience  of  even  ordinary  intelligence, 
for  mere  emotionalism  becomes  less  and  less  potent 
as  civilization  advances.  To  move  men,  you  must 
show  them  some  reason  for  their  being  aroused. 
This  fact  is  frequently  overlooked  in  student  de- 
bating. Many  so-called  arguments  are  little  more 
than  a  collation  of  popular  phrases  gleaned  from 
partisan  newspapers.  Thus,  a  trust  is  an  "octo- 
pus," the  Standard  Oil  Company  "a  grinding 
monopoly,"  a  "robber  tariff"  is  inflicting  untold 
injuries  on  the  "suffering  masses,"  and  so  on,  when 
perhaps  the  very  question  for  debate  requires  evi- 
dence to  establish  the  truth  of  these  question- 
begging  phrases.  Appeal  to  feeling  should  follow 
evidence,  not  replace  it;  first  show  the  facts  which 
make  out  a  case  for  appeal.  Knowledge,  feeling, 
volition,  action:  this  is  the  normal  order  for  the 
normal  individual.  Certain  exigencies  in  debate 
may  needs  change  this  order,  but  the  general  rule 
is  that  "emotion  is  conditional  on  apprehension, 
volition  on  emotion,  action  on  volition." 

Adaptation  of  Appeal  to  Audience. — Any  appeal 
to  the  emotions,  to  be  successful,  must,  of  course, 
reach  the  particular  audience  addressed.  It  must 
result  in  action  on  the  part  of  the  hearers,  be  the 
action  merely  mental  or  also  physical.  In  any 
case  the  action  desired  must  be  so  presented  to  the 
hearers  as  to  coincide  with  their  desires  and  in- 
terests; and  this  is  accomplished  through  certain 
intermediate  active  principles  called  motives.  Vari- 
ous attempts  have  been  made  to  classify  motives; 


210  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

as,  (i)  Duty  to  ourselves — pride,  prudence,  self- 
respect,  reputation,  integrity,  social  and  political 
ambition,  etc.;  (2)  duty  to  others — tolerance, 
charitableness,  love  of  one's  family,  city,  State,  or 
country,  admiration  of  courage,  perseverance, 
nobleness,  etc.;  (3)  duty  to  God,  which  comprises 
the  highest  and  worthiest  impulses.  All  these  are 
possible  incentives  to  action,  but  the  classification 
is  far  from  complete.  It  leaves  out  of  considera- 
tion the  lower  scale  of  motives — such  as  selfishness, 
avarice,  anger,  revenge,  jealousy,  fear,  hatred — and 
the  enumeration  of  the  more  worthy  motives  could 
be  extended  almost  indefinitely.  Men  are  moved 
by  a  great  variety  of  causes.  What  will  move  one 
audience  may  fail  to  move  another.  What  seems 
very  important  to  one  man  will  appear  of  little 
or  no  importance  to  another.  A  speaker  needs  to 
study  his  audience  both  collectively  and  individ- 
ually: collectively,  for  the  purpose  of  determin- 
ing the  general  class  of  motives  to  which  to  appeal; 
and  individually — which  must  usually  be  done 
during  the  progress  of  a  speech — for  the  purpose 
of  determining  the  different  motives  that  actuate 
individual  auditors.  It  is  said  of  the  great  trial 
lawyer,  Rufus  Choate,  that  "no  advocate  ever 
scanned  more  watchfully  the  faces  of  his  hearers 
while  speaking.  By  long  practice  he  had  learned 
to  read  their  sentiments  as  readily  as  if  their  hearts 
had  been  throbbing  in  glass  cases." 

Appeal  to  the  Highest  Motives  Possible. — Although 
the  speaker  has  the  whole  range  of  motives  to 
select  from,  yet  conscience,  as  well  as  tact  and  com- 


PERSUASION  211 

mon  sense,  should  guide  him  in  the  selection.  In 
the  first  place,  no  self -respecting  man  would  ever 
appeal  to  base  or  unworthy  motives.  Moreover, 
any  attempted  appeals  of  this  nature  ordinarily  de- 
feat their  purpose,  for  men  generally,  even  when 
they  have  unworthy  motives,  do  not  like  to  be  re- 
minded of  this  fact.  And  the  real  persuader  must 
be  a  leader.  In  him  the  hearers  must  recognize 
an  exponent  of  the  universal  struggle  of  man  to 
attain  an  ideal — a  universal  desire  for  virtue  as  an 
impelling  motive.  He  must,  therefore,  not  pull  his 
audience  down  to  the  level  of  the  lowest  motives 
operating  in  them,  but  must  bring  them  up  to  the 
level  of  the  highest  active  motives.  Generally 
speaking,  then,  always  appeal  to  the  highest  mo- 
tives that  will  reach  your  particular  audience. 

Reverting  to  our  outline  classification,  an  appeal 
to  motives  belonging  in  the  first  class — duty  to  our- 
selves— is  frequently  natural  and  proper.  But  a 
speaker  should  not  rest  on  appeals  to  self-interest 
alone ;  they  should  be  linked  to  those  motives  lying 
in  the  next  class  mentioned — duty  to  others.  In 
any  question  of  policy,  as  we  have  seen,  these  two 
classes  of  motives  are  almost  always  present.  And 
whenever  it  can  be  shown  that  a  proposed  reform 
or  policy  accords  with  the  duty  both  to  ourselves 
and  to  others,  the  argument  has  far  more  persua- 
sive power  than  either  class  of  motives  would  have 
by  itself.  So,  whenever  the  subject  lends  itself  to 
appeals  to  the  highest  motives — -duty  to  God — the 
opportunity  should  be  utilized  for  the  purpose  of 
persuasion.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the 


212  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

higher  the  motive  appealed  to  the  more  lasting 
will  be  the  appeal  and  the  stronger  the  impulse  to 
action.  Hence  religious  motives,  as  history  shows 
— witness  the  early  Christian  martyrs,  the  Cru- 
saders, the  Inquisition,  the  Huguenots,  and  Puri- 
tans—  have  furnished  the  most  powerful  incen- 
tives to  self-sacrificing  and  undaunted  action. 
When  aroused  by  spiritual  motives,  men  will  sacri- 
fice everything,  even  their  lives,  in  performing  what 
they  believe  to  be  their  duty  to  God. 

In  seeking  for  the  highest  usable  motives  related 
to  a  subject,  the  debater  should  aim  to  discover  and 
present  some  underlying  principle  germane  to  the 
question,  that  will  elevate  the  discussion  from  a 
narrow  viewpoint  to  a  broader  outlook,  from  the 
transitory  to  the  enduring,  from  the  temporal  to 
the  eternal.  Aim  to  introduce  in  the  debate  what 
has  been  termed  an  element  of  general  truth.  Try 
to  show  some  deeper  significance  in  the  question 
than  that  which  lies  upon  the  surface.  This  has 
ever  been  characteristic  of  great  debaters.  Some- 
one has  pointed  out  that  Burke  was  free  from 
that  quality  which  he  ascribed  to  Lord  George 
Sackville — "apt  to  take  a  sort  of  undecided,  equiv- 
ocal, narrow  ground,  that  evades  the  substantial 
merits  of  the  question  and  puts  the  whole  upon 
some  temporary,  local,  accidental,  or  personal  con- 
sideration." It  has  been  said  of  Webster  that  the 
greatness  of  his  fame  lies  largely  in  the  fact  that 
he  never  spoke  except  on  great  themes.  "The 
highest  platform  eloquence,"  says  Emerson,  "is 
the  moral  sentiment.  It  is  what  is  called  affirma- 


PERSUASION  213 

live  truth,  and  has  the  property  of  invigorating 
the  hearer;  and  it  conveys  a  hint  of  our  eternity 
v^ien  he  feels  himself  addressed  on  grounds  which 
will  remain  whatever  else  is  shaken,  and  which 
have  no  trace  of  time  or  place  or  r^arty."  So, 
whenever  a  great  theme  which  offers  an  oppor- 
tunity for  an  appeal  to  some  high  and  controlling 
principle  presents  itself,  seize  upon  this  and  use 
it — both  for  the  foundation  and  the  cap-stone, 
it  may  be,  of  the  whole  argument. 

Persuasion  in  the  Introduction. — Turning  now 
to  the  main  divisions  of  the  complete  argument,  let 
us  see  how  persuasion  may  be  used  to  supplement 
conviction.  In  treating  of  the  brief,  which  con- 
cerns itself  primarily  with  the  reasoning  processes, 
it  was  said  that  "the  function  of  the  introduction  is 
to  prepare  the  minds  of  the  audience  for  the  sub- 
sequent argument  by  presenting  all  facts  and  ex- 
planations necessary  for  understanding  the  ques- 
tion, pointing  out  the  issues  in  the  discussion,  and 
outlining  the  proof  as  to  those  issues."  But  in 
actual  debate  the  function  of  the  introduction  is, 
as  Cicero  says,  "reddere  auditor es  benevelos,  attentos, 
docile  s";  it  should  make  the  hearers  well  disposed 
toward  the  speaker,  stimulate  their  attention,  and 
prepare  their  minds  for  a  favorable  reception  of 
what  is  to  follow.  In  other  words,  the  speaker 
must  at  the  outset  ally  himself  and  his  subject  with 
the  interests  of  his  audience.  Nowhere  in  a  speech 
is  greater  tact  and  resourcefulness  required  than  in 
the  opening,  for  unless  the  speaker  can  make  the 
first  impressions  favorable  to  himself  and  his  cause, 
15 


2i4  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

his  subsequent  argument  is  apt  to  go  for  naught. 
If  the  audience  is  prejudiced  against  the  speaker's 
side  of  a  question,  the  prejudice  needs  to  be  dealt 
with  at  the  outset  by  the  use,  it  may  be,  of  the 
argument  of  antecedent  probability,  by  showing 
that  the  prejudice  is  unfounded,  or  by  pointing  out 
the  hearers'  misapprehension  as  to  the  real  merits 
of  the  case,  and  thus  making  it  appear  that  speaker 
and  hearers  are,  after  all,  not  so  far  apart  as  might 
seem  at  first  glance.  Following  is  an  example  of 
a  persuasive  introduction  occurring  in  an  intercol- 
legiate debate.1  The  first  speaker  on  the  negative, 
arguing  before  a  Southern  audience  in  favor  of  the 
continued  enlistment  of  negroes  in  the  United 
States  Army,  began  as  follows: 

In  view  of  the  unfortunate  Brownsville  affair  that 
has  occurred  so  recently  almost  in  your  very  midst, 
and  in  the  light  of  what  has  just  been  said,  it  may  seem 
that  there  is  but  one  side  to  this  question  that  negroes 
are  unfit  to  serve  in  the  army  and  that  their  enlistment 
should  at  once  be  discontinued.  And  yet,  upon  re- 
flection, it  will  doubtless  be  conceded  that  at  least  some- 
thing can  be  said  in  support  of  the  continuance  of  a 
policy  that  has  been  followed  in  this  country  ever  since 
the  birth  of  our  nation.  What  we  ask  and  what  we 
know  we  will  receive  is  simply  a  fair  and  impartial 
hearing  of  a  few  points  which,  to  us,  seem  worthy  of 
consideration  in  a  discussion  of  this  question. 

It  may  not  be  inappropriate  to  remark  at  the  outset 
that  Missouri  is  more  of  a  Southern  than  a  Northern 
State;  that  the  negro  problem  is  present  with  us  as  it 

1  The  Texas-Missouri  Debate  of  1907. 


PERSUASION  215 

is  with  you;  that  negroes  constitute  one-third  of  the 
population  of  the  city  of  Columbia,  where  the  univer- 
sity is  located;  that  Missouri  was  a  slave  State;  and 
that  it  is  the  son  of  an  ex-Confederate  soldier  who  is 
speaking  to  you  now.  So,  in  sentiment,  tradition,  and 
in  opportunities  for  studying  the  question  the  affirma- 
tive and  negative  stand  upon  common  ground.  Not 
as  Northerner  and  Southerner,  but  as  Southerner  and 
Southerner,  are  we  endeavoring  to  reach  the  proper 
solution  of  the  question  before  us. 

We  fully  agree  with  the  gentlemen  of  the  affirmative 
that  the  race  question  is  the  most  serious  problem  now 
confronting  the  American  people;  but,  as  we  have 
faith  in  the  future  of  American  civilization,  we  believe 
that  time  will  see  this  great  question  satisfactorily 
settled.  Nor  do  we  for  a  moment  believe  that  its  solu- 
tion will  come  along  the  line  of  social  equality  or  along 
the  line  of  political  equality,  but  rather  along  the  lines 
of  equality  of  service  and  equality  before  the  law.  It 
is  because  we  hope  that  some  day  the  Anglo-Saxon  race 
will  dominate  the  civilization  of  the  world  that  we  are 
contending  for  negro  soldiers.  If,  in  this  strenuous  age 
of  commercial  competition  and  racial  rivalry,  America 
is  to  contribute  toward  that  end,  she  must  use  every 
element  of  her  population  to  its  best  possible  advantage. 
Every  individual  and  every  class  of  individuals  must 
perform  that  work  for  which  they  are  best  fitted,  for 
this  way  alone  lies  progress,  prosperity,  industrial 
peace,  and  National  success.1 

Persuasion  in  the  Discussion. — The  opening  and 
closing  of  a  speech  are  the  places  where  persuasion 
is  most  needed.  The  discussion,  or  body  of  the 

1  By  courtesy  of  the  speaker,  Mr.  W.  F.  Woodruff,  of  the  Mis- 
souri team. 


2i6  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

argument,  should  aim  first  of  all  to  prove  one's 
case — to  convince.  But  it  does  not  follow  that 
persuasion  has  no  place  here.  Indeed,  the  ideal 
method  of  using  persuasion  is  not  to  reserve  for  it 
a  place  by  itself,  but  to  let  it  permeate  the  whole 
argument.  Thus  the  oral  presentation  of  one's 
argument  should  be  something  more  than  a  mere 
elaboration  of  the  steps  in  the  proof,  as  contained 
in  the  brief.  The  skilful  debater  will  always  aim 
to  give  his  reasoning  a  turn  personal  to  his  au- 
dience; so  that,  while  in  the  discussion  he  is 
primarily  concerned  with  reaching  the  understand- 
ing, at  the  same  time  he  does  not  fail  to  touch  the 
emotions,  whenever  his  proof  affords  an  oppor- 
tunity. A  few  detached  sentences  in  Webster's 
argument  in  the  White  murder  trial  will  illustrate 
how  persuasion  may  be  diffused  throughout  the 
body  of  the  discourse: 

Should  not  all  the  peaceable  and  well-disposed  natu- 
rally feel  concerned,  and  naturally  exert  themselves  to 
bring  to  punishment  the  authors  of  this  secret  assassina- 
tion? Was  it  a  thing  to  be  slept  upon  or  forgotten? 
Did  you,  gentlemen,  sleep  quite  as  quietly  in  your  beds 
after  this  murder  as  before?  .  .  .  Your  decision  in  this 
case,  they  say,  will  stand  as  a  precedent.  Gentlemen, 
we  hope  it  will.  We  hope  it  will  be  a  precedent  both  of 
candor  and  intelligence,  of  fairness  and  firmness;  a 
precedent  of  good  sense  and  honest  purpose  pursuing 
their  investigation  discreetly,  rejecting  loose  generalities, 
exploring  all  the  circumstances,  weighing  each,  in  search 
of  truth,  and  embracing  and  declaring  the  truth  when 
found.  ...  I  come  now  to  the  testimony  of  the  father. 
Unfortunate  old  man!  Another  I^ear  in  the  conduct  of 


PERSUASION  217 

his  children.     Another  Lear,  I  apprehend,  in  the  effect 
of  his  distress  upon  his  mind  and  understanding.  ...  It 
x      is  a  point  on  which  each  of  you  might  reason  like  a  Hale 
or  Mansfield. 

Persuasion  in  the  Conclusion. — Time  has  not 
changed  the  function  of  the  conclusion  as  stated  by 
Aristotle.  He  said  that  the  object  of  the  epilogue, 
or  conclusion,  was  fourfold:  First,  to  conciliate 
the  audience  in  favor  of  the  speaker  and  to  excite 
them  against  his  adversary;  secondly,  to  amplify 
and  diminish ;  thirdly,  to  arouse  the  emotions ;  and 
fourthly,  to  recapitulate.  Two  of  these  matters 
belong  to  conviction,  the  other  two  to  persuasion. 
To  recapitulate  and  to  "amplify  and  dimmish" 
are  desirable,  in  order  to  unify  and  reinforce  the 
appeal  to  reason;  to  gain  sympathy  and  arouse 
the  feelings  are  desirable,  in  order  to  effect  the 
desired  action.  In  any  event,  it  is  in  the  con- 
clusion that  the  debater  should  reach  the  height 
of  persuasion.  Here  he  must  aim  to  leave  a  lasting 
impression  by  marshaling  all  his  forces  and  making 
a  final  appeal. 

In  an  argument  of  any  length,  a  concluding  sum- 
mary is  almost  always  necessary  in  order  to  make 
the  proof  clear  and  forcible.  In  the  first  place,  it 
is  necessary  in  order  to  mass  and  unify  the  argu- 
ments as  a  whole;  and  again,  it  is  necessary  in 
order  to  recall  to  the  minds  of  the  hearers  the  vari- 
ous points  previously  presented,  and  which  with- 
out some  sort  of  repetition  are  likely  to  be  slighted 
or  forgotten.  But  here  an  important  distinction 
between  the  brief  and  the  oral  argument  is  to  be 


218  HOW   TO   DEBATE 

noted.  In  the  oral  argument,  one  should  not  sum- 
marize his  points  by  a  verbatim  repetition,  but 
should  seek  to  vary  the  expression,  and  thus  make 
old  material  seem  fresh. 

But  recapitulation  alone  is  frequently  not  enough. 
The  speaker  needs  to  take  advantage  of  the  last 
opportunity  to  win  the  sympathy  and  stir  the 
emotions  of  his  hearers.  In  summarizing,  he  may 
relate  his  argument,  as  a  whole  or  in  its  sub- 
divisions, to  the  prejudices  and  interests  of  his 
audience,  or  he  may  appeal  directly  to  the  emo- 
tions. No  rule  can  be  given  to  determine  the  rel- 
ative amount  of  conviction  and  persuasion  that 
should  be  used  in  the  conclusion  of  an  argument, 
for  this  must  depend  upon  the  relation  of  the 
speaker  to  his  subject  and  to  his  audience,  the  rela- 
tion of  the  audience  to  the  subject,  and  the  amount 
of  persuasion  which  has  been  introduced  in  the 
other  two  divisions  of  the  argument.  While  the 
conclusion  frequently  offers  an  opportunity  for 
proper  emotional  appeals,  it  should  not  be  over- 
done— as  witness  the  traditional  "spread-eagle" 
outburst  of  Fourth  of  July  orators.  Common 
sense  and  experience  must  be  the  guides.  The  val- 
uable opportunity  afforded  by  the  conclusion  is 
often  wasted  in  needless  repetitions  that  only 
weary  the  hearers,  and  by  emotional  appeals  that, 
by  reason  of  their  excess  and  non-adaptability  to 
those  addressed,  amuse  rather  than  move.  The 
conclusion  should  be  "brief  without  incomplete- 
ness, concise  without  obscurity,  direct,  forceful, 
compelling  men  to  seize,  hold  and  act  upon  the 


PERSUASION  219 

truth  established,  or  to  abandon  the  error  over- 
thrown."1 

Different  types  of  persuasive  conclusions  are 
shown  in  the  following  examples.  The  conclu- 
sion of  Webster's  jury  address  in  the  White  mur- 
der trial  contains  a  brief  summary  followed  by  a 
dignified  appeal  to  high  motives : 

Gentlemen,  I  have  gone  through  with  the  evidence  in 
this  case,  and  have  endeavored  to  state  it  plainly  and 
fairly  before  you.  I  think  there  are  conclusions  to  be 
drawn  from  it,  the  accuracy  of  which  you  cannot  doubt. 
I  think  you  cannot  doubt  that  there  was  a  conspiracy 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  committing  this  murder,  and 
who  the  conspirators  were;  that  you  cannot  doubt  that 
the  Crowninshields  and  the  Knapps  were  the  parties  in 
this  conspiracy;  that  you  cannot  doubt  that  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  knew  that  the  murder  was  to  be  done  on  the 
night  of  the  6th  of  April;  that  you  cannot  doubt  that 
the  murderers  of  Captain  White  were  the  suspicious 
persons  seen  in  and  about  Brown  Street  on  that  night; 
that  you  cannot  doubt  that  Richard  Crowninshield  was 
the  perpetrator  of  that  crime;  that  you  cannot  doubt 
that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  was  in  Brown  Street  on  that 
night.  If  there,  then  it  must  be  by  agreement,  to 
countenance,  to  aid  the  perpetrator.  And  if  so,  then 
he  is  guilty  as  PRINCIPAL. 

Gentlemen,  your  whole  concern  should  be  to  do  your 
duty,  and  leave  consequences  to  take  care  of  themselves. 
With  consciences  satisfied  with  the  discharge  of  duty, 
no  consequences  can  harm  you.  There  is  no  evil  that 
we  cannot  either  face  or  fly  from  but  the  consciousness 
of  duty  disregarded.  A  sense  of  duty  pursues  us  ever. 

1  MacEwan,  The  Essentials  of  Argumentation,  p.  262. 


220  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

It  is  omnipresent,  like  the  Deity.  If  we  take  to  our- 
selves the  wings  of  the  morning,  and  dwell  in  the  utter- 
most parts  of  the  sea,  duty  performed  or  duty  violated 
is  still  with  us,  for  our  happiness  or  our  misery.  If  we 
say  the  darkness  shall  cover  us,  in  the  darkness  as  in 
the  light  our  obligations  are  yet  with  us.  We  cannot 
escape  their  power  nor  fly  from  their  presence.  They 
are  with  us  in  this  life,  will  be  with  us  at  its  close;  and 
in  that  scene  of  inconceivable  solemnity  which  lies  yet 
farther  onward,  we  shall  still  find  ourselves  surrounded 
by  the  consciousness  of  duty,  to  pain  us  wherever  it  has 
been  violated  and  to  console  us  so  far  as  God  may  have 
given  us  grace  to  perform  it. 

Following  is  the  conclusion  of  one  of  Lincoln's 
speeches  in  the  Lincoln-Douglas  debates: 

Henry  Clay,  my  beau-ideal  of  a  statesman,  the  man 
for  whom  I  fought  all  my  humble  life — Henry  Clay 
once  said  of  a  class  of  men  who  would  repress  all  ten- 
dencies to  liberty  and  ultimate  emancipation,  that  they 
must,  if  they  would  do  this,  go  back  to  the  era  of  our 
Independence,  and  muzzle  the  cannon  which  thunders 
its  annual  joyous  return;  they  must  blow  out  the  moral 
lights  around  us;  they  must  penetrate  the  human  soul 
and  eradicate  there  the  love  of  liberty;  and  then,  and 
not  till  then,  could  they  perpetuate  slavery  in  this  coun- 
try !  To  my  thinking,  Judge  Douglas  is,  by  his  example 
and  vast  influence,  doing  that  very  thing  in  this  com- 
munity, when  he  says  that  the  negro  has  nothing  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Henry  Clay  plainly 
understood  the  contrary.  Judge  Douglas  is  going  back 
to  the  era  of  our  Revolution,  and,  to  the  extent  of  his 
ability,  muzzling  the  cannon  which  thunders  its  annual 
joyous  return.  When  he  invites  any  people,  willing  to 


PERSUASION  221 

have  slavery,  to  establish  it,  he  is  blowing  out  the  moral 
lights  around  us.  When  he  says  he  "cares  not  whether 
slavery  is  voted  down  or  voted  up" — that  it  is  a  sacred 
right  of  self-government — he  is,  in  my  judgment,  pene- 
trating the  human  soul  and  eradicating  the  light  of  rea- 
son and  the  love  of  liberty  in  this  American  people.  And 
now  I  will  only  say  that  when,  by  all  these  means  and 
appliances,  Judge  Douglas  shall  succeed  in  bringing  pub- 
lic sentiment  to  an  exact  accordance  with  his  own  views, 
when  these  vast  assemblages  shall  echo  back  all  these 
sentiments,  when  they  shall  come  to  repeat  his  views 
and  to  avow  his  principles,  and  to  say  all  that  he  says 
on  these  mighty  questions — then  it  needs  only  the  for- 
mality of  the  second  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  he  in- 
dorses in  advance,  to  make  slavery  alike  lawful  in  all 
the  States — old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South. 
My  friends,  that  ends  the  chapter.  The  Judge  can 
take  his  half-hour. 


RHETORICAL   QUALITIES 

There  are  certain  rhetorical  qualities  which 
should  characterize  matter  to  be  addressed  to  a 
hearer,  as  distinguished  from  that  to  be  addressed 
to  a  reader.  These  qualities  may  be  grouped  under 
the  threefold  classification  of  (i)  Concreteness, 
(2)  Direct  Discourse,  and  (3)  Emphasis. 

Concreteness. — The  concrete  as  opposed  to  the 
abstract,  the  specific  as  opposed  to  the  general,  the 
particular  example  of  a  thing  as  opposed  to  a  gen- 
eral statement  regarding  a  class  of  things — these 
are  especially  desirable  in  oral  discourse.  We  have 
noted  the  necessity  of  facts  and  the  desirability  of 


222  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

examples,  as  means  of  proof;  but  concreteness,  as 
an  element  of  persuasion,  serves  the  further  pur- 
poses of  clarifying  the  proof  and  of  stimulating  in- 
terest. Facts  and  illustrations  should  always  either 
precede  or  follow  abstract  theories  and  general 
statements.  One  of  the  six  rules  laid  down  by 
Colonel  Higginson  for  speech-making  generally 
may  well  be  followed  literally  by  the  debater: 
11  Plan  beforehand  for  one  good  fact  and  one  good 
illustration  under  each  head  of  your  speech." 
Among  the  manifold  sayings  attributed  to  Lincoln, 
the  following  tallies  closely  enough  with  his  meth- 
ods to  be  true:  "They  say  I  tell  a  great  many 
stories.  I  reckon  I  do,  but  I  have  found  in  the 
course  of  a  long  experience  that  common  people, 
take  them  as  a  run,  are  more  easily  informed 
through  the  medium  of  a  broad  illustration  than  in 
any  other  way,  and  as  to  what  the  hypercritical 
few  may  think,  I  don't  care." 

Illustrations,  as  we  have  seen,  are  not  necessarily 
argument,  but  they  make  an  argument  clearer  and 
otherwise  more  effective.  A  single  anecdote,  or 
story,  or  illustration  has  often  proved  more  effec- 
tive than  much  abstract  reasoning,  however  log- 
ical and  sound.  If  the  illustration  has  humor  in 
it,  all  the  better;  but  the  wise  debater  will  not  go 
out  of  his  way  to  be  humorous,  or  hunt  for  far- 
fetched illustrations.  He  must  be  careful  to  make 
sure  that  an  illustration  is  apt,  otherwise  a  danger- 
ous opening  is  left  for  a  different  application  by 
an  opponent.  "Illustrations  rightly  used  assist 
argument,  help  the  hearers  to  remember,  stimulate 


PERSUASION  223 

the  imagination,  rest  the  audience  by  changing  the 
faculties  employed  in  listening,  reach  through  dif- 
ferent avenues  different  hearers,  and  bridge  diffi- 
cult places  by  teaching  parabolically  truth  to  which 
men  would  refuse  to  listen  if  presented  directly. 
To  be  effective  they  must  be  various,  often  homely, 
accurate,  and  apt,  and  prompt."1  And  to  quote 
Lincoln  again:  "I  believe  I  have  the  popular  repu- 
tation of  being  a  story-teller,  but  I  do  not  deserve 
the  name  in  its  general  sense,  for  it  is  not  the  story 
itself,  but  its  purpose,  or  effect,  that  interests  me. 
I  often  avoid  a  long  and  useless  discussion  by 
others  or  a  laborious  explanation  on  my  own  part 
by  a  short  story  that  illustrates  my  point  of  view. 
So,  too,  the  sharpness  of  a  refusal  or  the  edge  of  a 
rebuke  may  be  blunted  by  an  appropriate  story, 
so  as  to  save  wounded  feeling  and  yet  serve  the 
purpose.  No,  I  am  not  simply  a  story-teller,  but 
story-telling  as  an  emollient  saves  me  much  fric- 
tion and  distress."2 

A  study  of  the  methods  employed  by  successful 
lecturers  and  revivalists,  such  as  John  B.  Gough, 
Dwight  L.  Moody,  Sam  Jones,  and  Billy  Sunday, 
shows  that  much  of  their  power  lay  in  the  emotion 
aroused  by  their  vivid  stories  and  dramatic  illus- 
trations. Napoleon,  in  his  Egyptian  campaign, 
made  a  concrete  appeal  to  his  troops  by  pointing  to 
the  pyramids  and  exclaiming:  "Soldiers,  forty 
centuries  look  down  upon  you!"  After  the  defeat 
of  the  Union  army  at  Bull  Run,  General  Garfield 

1  Lyman  Abbott,  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  p.  361. 

2  Silas  W.  Burt,  in  the  Century  Magazine  for  February,  1907. 


224  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

quieted  the  terror-stricken  mob  in  New  York  by 
his  oracular  "God  reigns  and  the  government  at 
Washington  still  lives."  Governor  Rusk  dispersed 
a  different  mob  in  Milwaukee  by  declaring:  "If 
these  streets  are  not  cleared  in  two  minutes,  I'll 
order  the  militia  to  let  daylight  into  every  one  of 
you."  Mr.  Burchard's  "Rum,  Romanism,  and 
Rebellion"  speech  defeated  Elaine  for  the  Presi- 
dency. And  so  illustrations  might  be  multiplied  to 
show  the  effectiveness  of  translating  a  general  ar- 
gument into  a  concrete  statement.  A  speaker  who 
couches  all  his  statements  in  general  terms  will  soon 
make  any  audience  drowsy,  while  concrete  cases, 
by  arousing  distinct  images  in  the  mind,  will  at 
least  keep  the  hearers  awake.  Instead  of  saying 
that  the  British  Empire  is  world-wide  in  extent, 
orators  are  fond  of  saying  that  the  sun  never  sets 
on  the  English  flag;  or,  as  Webster  once  expressed 
it,  an  empire  that  "has  dotted  over  the  surface  of 
the  whole  globe  her  possessions  and  military  posts, 
whose  morning  drumbeat,  following  the  sun  and 
keeping  company  with  the  hours,  circles  the  earth 
with  one  continuous  and  unbroken  strain  of  the 
martial  airs  of  England. ' '  So,  images  of  individuals 
— specific  instances — loom  up  larger  in  the  imagina- 
tion than  those  of  classes.  The  general  term 
calls  up  an  indefinite  image,  the  particular  term  a 
definite  image.  Instead  of  speaking  of  "alien 
races,"  the  effective  debater  will  say  "Chinese  and 
Italians."  Instead  of  discoursing  on  agricultural 
conditions  in  general,  he  will  mention  corn  or  pota- 
toes or  pigs;  the  homelier  the  concrete  example,  so 


PERSUASION  225 

that  it  be  apt,  the  better.  Herbert  Spencer  advises 
us  to  avoid  such  sentences  as,  "In  proportion  as  the 
manners,  customs,  and  amusements  of  a  nation 
are  cruel  and  barbarous,  the  regulations  of  their 
penal  code  will  be  severe,"  and  to  say  instead,  "In 
proportion  as  men  delight  in  battles,  bull-fights,  and 
combats  of  gladiators,  they  will  punish  by  hanging, 
burning,  and  the  rack."  During  the  Chicago  riots 
of  1894,  when  President  Cleveland  was  being  criti- 
cized for  employing  Federal  troops  to  insure  un- 
hindered mail  service,  a  speaker  appealed  to  the 
imagination  of  his  hearers  and  aroused  them  to 
enthusiasm  by  using  this  concrete  statement:  "If 
necessary,  every  regiment  in  the  United  States 
Army  must  be  called  out,  that  the  letter  dropped  by 
the  girl  Jenny,  at  some  country  post-office  back  in 
Maine,  may  go  on  its  way  to  her  lover  in  San 
Francisco  without  a  finger  being  raised  to  stop 
it!"  Similarly,  a  speaker  attempting  to  show  that 
with  the  aid  of  a  ship-canal  New  Orleans  would  be- 
come the  shipping  port  for  the  Middle  West,  used 
the  following  illustration :  ' '  Hills  and  valleys  aside, 
if  you  were  to  kick  off  a  barrel  of  flour  at  Minne- 
apolis, it  would  roll  to  New  Orleans." 

The  direct  presentation  or  concrete  illustration 
of  an  object,  instead  of  a  description  of  it,  makes 
an  argument  more  comprehensible  and  impressive 
to  the  average  mind.  When  a  lawyer,  for  ex- 
ample, brings  a  suit  for  damages  against  a  railroad 
company  for  an  injury  sustained  by  his  client  at  a 
grade  crossing,  he  presents  to  the  jury  maps  or 
photographs  of  such  crossing,  also  the  torn  pieces 


226  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

of  clothing  resulting  from  the  accident,  and,  it  may 
be,  the  actual  injury  inflicted  upon  his  client.  In 
like  manner,  President  Roosevelt  attracted  unusual 
attention  to  his  special  message  to  Congress  re- 
garding the  Panama  Canal  by  submitting  as  a 
part  of  the  message  numerous  photographs  illus- 
trating various  phases  of  the  problem  of  construc- 
tion. So,  when  the  pure-food  bill  was  before 
Congress  in  1906,  Representative  Mann,  of  Illi- 
nois, procured  packages  containing  impure  food- 
stuffs and  had  them  on  a  table  before  him  during 
his  argument;  and  it  was  claimed  that  this  method 
of  concrete  presentation  did  more  to  turn  the  tide 
in  favor  of  the  bill  than  any  other  one  thing. 

Concreteness  is  especially  necessary  in  dealing 
with  statistics.  In  the  establishment  of  one's  proof 
statistics  must  often  be  employed,  but  in  debate,  as 
distinguished  from  the  written  argument,  they 
should  be  " heard  and  not  seen."  To  recite  a  table 
of  figures  it  is  not  only  "dry  "  to  a  listener,  but  usu- 
ally unintelligible.  The  debater  should  select  the 
point  essential  to  his  argument,  and  put  this  in  a 
brief  and  interesting  form.  Figures  should  usual- 
ly be  presented  in  relative  terms,  or  in  terms  of 
percentage.  In  any  event,  some  standard  of  com- 
parison should  always  follow  statistics  stated  in 
the  abstract.  For  example:  "The  farm  value  of 
the  corn,  wheat,  and  oats  produced  in  the  United 
States  in  1896  amounted  to  $934,000,000;  in 
1906,  it  aggregated  $1,912,000,000.  The  value  of 
farm  animals  increased  from  $1,728,000,000  in 
1896  to  $3,675,000,000  in  1906.  Thus  we  see  that 


PERSUASION  227 

farm  values  have  more  than  doubled  in  a  period 
of  ten  years.  For  every  dollar  possessed  by  the 
American  farmer  in  1896  he  could  get  two  dollars 
in  return  in  1906.  And  in  the  wages  paid  to  labor, 
in  manufacturing,  and  in  our  foreign  trade,  pros- 
perity during  this  period  has  moved  along  on  the 
same  double- track  lines."1  Again,  figures  should 
almost  always  be  stated  in  round  numbers;  small 
numbers  and  fractions  detract  from  the  vividness. 
Rhetorically  speaking,  fifty  thousand  dollars  is  a 
larger  sum  than  $50,138.47;  half  a  million  dollars 
is  far  more  comprehensible  than  $500,239.62. 

The  relation  of  the  oral  argument  to  the  brief 
is  largely  a  problem  in  concreteness ;  and  it  is  a 
problem  demanding  great  care  and,  usually,  con- 
siderable practice.  In  all  argumentation  clearness 
is  essential,  and  this  has  presumably  been  secured 
in  the  brief.  But  the  brief  is  only  the  foundation 
and  framework  for  the  finished  argument.  Now, 
in  completing  the  structure — to  continue  our  fig- 
ure— there  are  these  two  extremes :  first,  in  making 
it  so  plain  and  severe  that  it  is  unattractive,  or  so 
jagged  and  seamy  as  to  expose  the  framework; 
and,  secondly,  in  making  it  so  ornamental — so 
adorning  it  with  foliage  and  flowers  and  accesso- 
ries— that  the  solidity  and  proportions  of  the  struct- 
ure are  completely  hidden.  On  the  one  hand, 
then,  the  general  outline  of  one's  proof  should  be 
made  apparent.  The  oral  argument  will  ordinarily 
follow  the  order  of  the  brief,  and  the  points  to  be 

1  Adapted  from  the  speech  of  Hon.  Joseph  G.  Cannon  in  open- 
ing the  Congressional  campaign  of  1906. 


228  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

enforced  and  their  logical  connections  must  be 
made  plain  to  the  hearers.  This  is  necessary  for 
securing  clearness,  and  it  is  a  necessity  that  the  in- 
experienced debater  is  apt  to  overlook.  In  most 
arguments  the  structure  is  not  clear  enough;  the 
hearers  are  not  made  to  understand,  at  each  step 
in  the  proof,  just  what  progress  has  been  made — 
just  how  a  particular  argument  is  related  to  argu- 
ments preceding  and  following.  But  while  struct- 
ure needs  to  be  emphasized,  it  should  not  and 
need  not  be  at  the  sacrifice  of  rhetorical  form  and 
finish.  One's  proof  is  not  to  be  presented  to  an 
audience  simply  by  a  fuller  statement,  in  a  bald 
and  literal  style,  of  the  headings  of  the  brief. 
Such  a  method  might  arrest  the  attention  of  a 
specialist  in  logic  or  mathematics,  but  would  ut- 
terly fail  to  convince  or  persuade  the  average 
listener.  In  short,  the  ideal  relation  of  the  oral 
argument  to  the  brief  would  be  such  that  the  hear- 
ers can  listen  to  the  argument  with  the  ease  and 
interest  with  which  one  listens  to  a  good  conver- 
sationalist, and  at  the  same  time  can  follow  its 
structure  as  readily  as  that  of  a  logical  syllogism 
or  a  geometrical  demonstration. 

Direct  Discourse. — Another  distinctive  charac- 
teristic of  spoken  discourse  is  that  it  partakes  of 
the  nature  of  direct  conversation,  as  of  man  to 
man.  In  a  written  argument  the  audience  is  un- 
known, or  indistinct;  in  debate,  the  audience  is 
usually  known  in  advance,  and  is  always  known— 
and  is  to  be  recognized — at  the  moment  of  speak- 
ing. This  direct  contact  of  hearers  and  speaker 


PERSUASION  229 

necessitates,  on  the  part  of  the  latter,  an  attitude  of 
directness.  The  speaker  must  keep  constantly  in 
mind,  and  must  so  impress  his  hearers,  that  he  is 
addressing  that  particular  audience,  not  only  in  the 
mass,  but  as  individuals.  This  relation  of  speaker 
to  hearers  should  result  in  the  frequent  use  of  di- 
rect discourse,  and  this,  in  turn,  in  the  use  of  direct, 
short  sentences,  of  the  present  tense,  and  of  the  in- 
terrogatory. The  direct,  short  sentence  is  an  aid 
to  clearness,  and  it  is  the  conversational  style. 
This  does  not  mean,  of  course,  the  disconnected, 
"chippy"  style  affected  by  some,  and  it  does  not 
preclude  the  use  of  the  periodic  sentence  in  making 
a  summary  or  in  leading  up  to  a  climacteric  con- 
clusion; it  simply  means  that  long,  involved,  over- 
formal  sentences,  which  sometimes  might  be  tol- 
erated in  an  essay,  should  never  be  used  in  a 
speech:  the  hearer  has  no  chance  to  review  state- 
ments at  his  leisure,  but  must  be  made  to  grasp  the 
thought,  with  the  least  possible  mental  effort,  as 
the  speaker  proceeds.  If  a  debater,  then,  bears  in 
mind  that  the  best  speaking  is  simply  direct,  strong 
talk,  and  so  frames  the  expression  of  his  argument 
in  his  best  conversational  style,  he  will  not  go  far 
amiss.  And  then,  if  you  put  a  statement  in  the 
present  tense  and  in  the  second  person,  you  at  once 
emphasize  this  conversational  relationship — you 
make  the  hearer  a  partner  in  the  discourse,  with  all 
the  interests  of  partnership.  Then  again,  if  you 
ask  a  man  a  question,  simple  respect  compels  his 
attention;  the  question-asking  method  comes  to 
him  with  far  more  directness  than  the  same  state- 

16 


230  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

ment  put  in  the  third  person  and  in  the  declarative 
form.  Note,  for  example,  the  difference  in  its 
effect  upon  the  average  listener  between  saying,  "It 
has  been  claimed  by  some  that  the  policy  proposed 
has  only  a  practical  and  immediate  bearing,  but  it 
can  be  shown,  however,  that  such  is  not  the  case"; 
and  this  form:  "Do  you  say  that  this  measure 
deals  only  with  the  case  now  before  us?  Let  us 
see  about  that."  The  rhetorical  question  in  debate 
conduces  to  variety  and  incisiveness.  So,  the  ques- 
tion-asking or  "Socratic"  method  as  between  the 
debaters  themselves  involves  the  application  of  this 
same  principle  of  directness,  and  has  the  further 
advantages  of  pointing  out  the  issues,  compelling 
a  direct  reply,  and  casting  the  burden  of  proof. 

Emphasis. — As  related  to  argument,  emphasis 
puts  stress  upon  the  significant  points  in  the  proof. 
The  main  issues  are  in  some  way  to  be  so  placed 
before  the  audience  as  to  leave  a  definite  impress. 
Among  the  ways  of  accomplishing  this  are  by  fre- 
quent summaries  and  proper  transitions,  and  by 
the  employment  of  iteration,  energy,  and  move- 
ment. 

We  have  noted  the  need  of  a  summary  in  the 
conclusion,  but  in  an  oral  argument  of  any  length 
intermediate  summaries,  at  the  conclusions  of  the 
main  divisions  of  the  proof,  are  usually  necessary. 
It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  even  the  most  atten- 
tive listener  cannot  readily  carry  in  mind  the  proof 
in  detail  without  some  aid  in  the  way  of  occasional 
recapitulation.  The  reader  can  look  back  and  re: 
view,  when  necessary;  the  hearer  must  get  the 


PERSUASION  231 

thought  as  the  speaker  proceeds,  else  not  get  it  at 
all.  A  summary  enables  the  hearer  to  review,  in 
concise  form,  just  what  has  been  shown  up  to  a 
given  point.  Generally  speaking,  the  paragraph 
structure  of  the  finished  argument  will  correspond 
with  the  main  headings  of  the  brief;  and  a  good 
general  rule  is,  to  let  the  last  sentence  of  a  para- 
graph state  in  a  summary  form  the  main  thought 
embraced  in  such  paragraph.  This  should  not  be 
done  in  a  formal  and  stereotyped  fashion;  these 
concluding  sentences  should  be  varied  in  form,  now 
a  pure  summary  and  now  incorporating  the  per- 
suasive element,  as  the  nature  of  the  proof  de- 
mands. Then,  in  closing  up  a  larger  division  of 
the  arguments — as  the  I,  II,  III  propositions  in 
the  brief — a  separate  paragraph  should  often  be 
incorporated  for  the  purpose  of  summarizing  the 
entire  proof  up  to  that  stage  of  the  argument,  and 
so  emphasizing  the  salient  points.  "The  essentials 
of  a  good  summary  are:  to  include  every  impor- 
tant point  made;  to  show  clearly  their  relations  to 
one  another;  to  give  each  its  due  emphasis;  to 
provide  one  or  more,  as  circumstances  require,  with 
persuasive  significance;  and  to  leave  perfectly 
clear  the  meaning  and  purposes  of  the  ideas  taken 
as  a  group."  Following  is  an  excellent  example 
of  the  concise,  simple,  and  direct  style  of  summary 
that  is  usually  most  desirable  for  use  at  the  inter- 
mediate stages  of  the  proof: 

These  are  some  of  the  serious  and  threatening  evils  of 
the  present  practice  of  treating  the  inferior  posts  of  ad- 
ministration as  party  prizes.  It  exasperates  party  spirit 


232  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

and  perverts  the  election.  It  tends  to  fill  the  public  ser- 
vice with  incapacity  and  corruption,  destroying  its  repu- 
tation and  repelling  good  men.  It  entices  Congress  to 
desert  the  duties  to  which  it  is  especially  designated  by 
the  Constitution,  and  tempts  the  Executive  to  perilous 
intrigue.1 

Closely  allied  to  the  summary,  and  not  infre- 
quently a  part  of  it,  is  the  transition.  The  sum- 
mary looks  backward,  the  transition  forward;  or, 
if  you  please,  the  transition  first  glances  backward, 
and  then  looks  forward.  "A  transition  is  a  form 
of  speech  by  which  the  speaker  in  a  few  words  tells 
his  hearers  both  what  he  has  said  already  and  what 
he  next  designs  to  say.  Where  a  discourse  consists 
of  several  parts,  this  is  often  very  proper  in  pass- 
ing from  one  to  another,  especially  when  the  parts 
are  of  considerable  length;  for  it  assists  the  hear- 
ers to  carry  on  the  series  of  the  discourse  in  their 
mind,  which  is  a  great  advantage  to  the  memory. 
It  is  likewise  a  great  relief  to  the  attention  to  be 
told  when  an  argument  is  finished,  and  what  is  to 
be  expected  next."2  In  an  argument,  as  distin- 
guished from  other  forms  of  composition,  the  open- 
ing sentence  of  a  paragraph  should  indicate  the 
transition  by  a  sort  of  combined  summary  and 
partition.  This  must,  of  course,  be  done  briefly; 
but  as  a  general  rule,  though  by  no  means  an  in- 
flexible one,  let  the  first  sentence  of  a  paragraph 
state  the  connection  between  the  new  line  of  argu- 
ment and  that  which  has  immediately  preceded  it, 

1  George  William  Curtis,  Orations  and  Addresses^  II.,  p.  43. 

2  Ward,  A  Systew  of  Oratory,  IX.,  p.  290, 


PERSUASION  233 

and  indicate  what  the  subject  of  the  paragraph 
is  to  be.  This,  again,  aids  the  hearers  in 
following  you,  and  so  is  one  means  of  emphasis. 
Thus,  George  William  Curtis,  in  an  argument  in 
favor  of  civil-service  reform,  begins  a  paragraph 
with  this  sentence : 

But  while  these  are  the  necessary  results  of  the  present 
system  of  admission,  both  upon  the  service  itself  and 
upon  the  character  of  those  who  are  employed  in  it, 
there  are  evils  to  be  considered  still  more  serious. 

Iteration  is  another  important  means  of  em- 
phasis, and  it  is  much  more  allowable  in  oral  than 
in  written  discourse.  You  want  the  hearers  to  get 
the  strong  points  in  your  argument,  and  if  there  is 
any  reason  for  thinking  that  a  given  point  may 
not  have  been  made  clear  or  that  its  importance  is 
not  properly  appreciated  from  the  first  presenta- 
tion, say  it  again  and  again,  seek  for  another  way 
of  approach,  pound  away  by  the  use  of  varied  il- 
lustration— for  here  the  principle  of  concreteness 
can  well  be  applied. 

Any  one  who  has  listened  to  the  arguments  of 
the  most  successful  trial  lawyers  must  have  noted 
that  iteration  is  a  common  device  for  gaining  em- 
phasis. Early  in  Greek  oratory,  indeed,  its  value 
was  recognized: 

A  striking  trait  of  Isaeus  [420-350  B.C.]  in  the  prov- 
ince of  argument  is  iteration;  and  the  preference  of 
emphasis  to  form  which  this  implies  is  worth  notice  as 
suggesting  how  the  practical  view  of  oratory  was  begin- 
ning to  prevail  over  the  artistic.  Sometimes  the  repeti- 


234  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

tion  is  verbal — an  indignant  question  or  phrase  occurs 
again  and  again,  where  Isocrates  would  have  abstained 
from  using  it  twice.  More  often  it  is  an  argument  or 
a  statement  which  the  speaker  aims  at  impressing  on 
the  hearers  by  urging  it  in  a  series  of  different  forms 
and  connections.  Or  even  a  document  cited  at  the  out- 
set is  read  a  second  time,  as  if  to  make  the  jury  realize 
more  vividly  that  a  circle  of  proof  has  been  completed.1 

It  should  be  understood  that  the  best  method  of 
iteration  is  not  the  merely  verbal,  but  rather  the 
method  described  in  the  preceding  quotation — 
that  of  presenting  an  argument  "in  a  series  of  dif- 
ferent forms  and  connections.'1  Iteration  means  a 
repetition  of  the  thought,  and  not  of  the  form  of 
expression.  It  consists  in  going  over  the  same 
ground,  but  not  the  same  course,  so  far  as  the  ver- 
bal form  is  concerned.  Otherwise,  it  descends  into 
mere  tautology.  Variety,  here  as  elsewhere,  is  to 
be  sought;  the  question  being,  "How  can  I  pre- 
sent this  point  in  some  other  way  so  as  to  make  it 
clearer  and  more  emphatic?"  Further,  it  is  only 
the  important  points  that  are  to  be  emphasized  by 
iteration.  The  debater  must  keep  in  mind  the  per- 
spective of  his  argument  as  a  whole  and  observe 
the  law  of  proportion.  Emphasis  of  relatively  un- 
important arguments  detracts  from  the  emphasis 
of  important  ones.  Again  taking  the  paragraph  as 
the  unit  of  the  thought  development,  the  stronger 
arguments  are  the  ones  to  be  placed  first  and  last 
in  the  paragraph,  and  are  to  be  dwelt  upon  with 

1  Jebb,  Attic  Orators,  II.,  p.  297. 


PERSUASION  235 

greater  fullness  of  evidence  and  reinforced  by  any 
necessary  iteration. 

There  is,  of  course,  another  side  to  this  matter. 
There  is  danger  of  being  so  repetitious  as  to  be 
tiresome,  and  to  so  "overprove"  even  important 
points  as  to  insult  the  intelligence  of  an  audience. 
A  friend  once  asked  Daniel  Webster,  "How  did 
you  come  to  lose  that  case?"  and  the  reply  was, 
"I  overproved  it."  It  is  always  a  nice  question  to 
determine  just  when  the  point  of  greatest  emphasis 
is  reached,  for  to  go  on  elaborating  what  is  obvi- 
ous is  weakening. 

For  the  purposes  of  argumentation,  energy  and 
movement  as  elements  of  emphasis  may  be  classed 
together.  Energy  may  be  largely  aided,  of  course, 
by  the  manner  of  delivery,  but  speaking  now  of 
form  of  statement,  it  should  be  the  speaker's  con- 
stant endeavor  to  make  his  style  as  sententious  as 
possible.  The  debater  must  study  and  cultivate 
the  art  of  putting  things.  He  must  make  his 
points  stick.  Hence  the  value  of  the  epigram.  A 
constantly  recurring  question  should  be,  "How 
can  I  make  the  expression  of  this  point  more  strik- 
ing?" "To  energize  knowledge  is  the  office  of 
persuasion."  Movement  is  the  complement  of 
energy.  The  hearers  must  be  made  to  feel  that, 
as  the  argument  proceeds,  some  real  progress  is 
being  made,  and  that  toward  a  definite  point.  The 
drift  and  purpose  of  the  whole  argument,  and  of 
each  division  of  it,  must  be  made  apparent  as  the 
proof  is  developed.  The  summary  and  transition 
are  aids  to  this  end,  but  there  must  be  logical 


236  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

progress.  The  proof  must  move  along,  must  go 
steadily  forward,  not  back  and  forth,  not  round 
and  round,  not  by  leaping  of  gaps.  If  one  were  to 
journey  to  a  given  point,  he  would  take  as  direct  a 
course  to  it  as  possible;  and  yet  much  student  de- 
bating resembles  the  movements  of  a  dog  that 
might  accompany  our  traveler  on  his  journey — 
pursuing  a  zigzag  course,  turning  hither  and 
thither,  and  here  and  there  barking  up  a  tree.  The 
debater  must  follow  closely  the  course  as  staked 
out  by  the  main  issues.  Digression  and  discursive- 
ness are  foes  to  movement.  Do  not  attempt  to 
say  something  about  everything  connected  with  the 
subject.  Especially  when  one's  time  is  limited, 
there  is  danger  of  proving  at  too  many  lines  of 
argument.  It  is  far  better  to  select  a  strong  argu- 
ment and  prove  it,  and  let  minor  arguments  go,  if 
necessary.  Weight  counts  far  more  than  num- 
bers. Rhetorically,  there  is  all  the  difference  in 
the  world  between  an  enumeration  of  arguments 
and  a  chain  of  proof.  That  is  to  say.  enrohasis  is 
of  far  more  importance  to  the  success  of  an  argu- 
ment than  exhaustiveness, 

Method  of  Preparation. — Having  drawn  a  brief 
of  a  question  for  debate,  shall  a  speaker  write  out 
his  argument  in  full  and  memorize  it,  in  whole  or 
in  part,  or  shall  he  only  use  the  brief  as  a  general 
guide,  and  trust  to  the  extempore  method  at  the 
moment  of  speaking?  Each  method  has  its  ad- 
vantages and  disadvantages,  and  so  much  depends 
upon  individual  experience  and  capability  that 
there  has  been,  no  doubt,  much  useless  theorizing 


PERSUASION  237 

about  this  question.  No  dogmatic  rule  can  be 
laid  down  that  this  or  that  method  is  the  best 
for  every  occasion  and  individual.  But  whatever 
method  is  used  at  the  moment  of  delivery,  proper 
preparation  for  debating  in  general,  and  for  any 
debate  in  particular,  requires  practice  in  reducing 
one's  thoughts  to  writing.  Practice  in  writing  out 
an  argument  in  full,  with  the  careful  weighing  of 
words  and  the  application  of  all  the  rhetorical 
principles  previously  discussed,  should  always  pre- 
cede any  attempt  at  extemporaneous  presentation; 
for  writing  conduces  to  orderliness,  exactness, 
force,  and  finish,  and  also — an  important  item 
when  a  speaker  has  a  time  limit — to  economy  of 
words.  Further,  whether  the  speech  as  written  be 
memorized  word  for  word  or  not,  it  is  far  more 
likely  to  come  to  the  speaker  in  the  orderly  form 
in  which  it  was  written  than  if  no  manuscript  had 
been  prepared  in  advance.  Just  what  use  may  be 
made  of  the  manuscript  must  depend  upon  the  in- 
dividual. It  is  always  a  question  between  accuracy 
and  finish,  on  the  one  hand,  and  freedom  and 
fluency  on  the  other.  In  formal  debates,  where  the 
line  of  argument  for  each  debater  has  been  agreed 
upon,  and  there  is  limited  time  in  which  to  present 
it,  it  is  best,  as  a  general  rule,  for  the  speaker  to 
get  the  form  as  well  as  the  substance  of  his  argu- 
ment pretty  well  in  mind.  But  the  debater  must 
acquire  the  ability  to  depart  from  his  prepared 
speech,  when  necessary.  Of  all  the  forms  of  pub- 
lic address,  debating  especially  requires  that  the 
speaker  be  flexible  and  able  to  cast  aside  a  cut-and- 


238  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

dried  speech  when  occasion  demands.  His  intro- 
duction, for  example,  must  frequently  be  deter- 
mined by  the  state  of  the  discussion  at  the  time  he 
enters  it;  and  although  much  of  his  refutation 
may  be  planned  in  advance,  he  cannot  depend  upon 
that  alone,  but  must  often  reply  directly  to  an  op- 
posing argument.  Let  the  student,  then,  at  least 
in  his  initial  efforts,  write  out  his  argument  word 
for  word;  let  him  memorize  it,  if  need  be,  to  use 
as  a  sheet  anchor  for  his  sailing  while  confidence  is 
being  acquired;  but  let  him  gradually  learn  to 
speak  extempore,  wholly,  if  his  experience  and 
ability  warrant  this  method,  but  at  least  in  part 
as  the  exigencies  of  debate  may  demand. 

Sincerity  and  Earnestness. — Sincerity  in  professed 
beliefs  and  earnestness  in  their  presentation  are 
prime  essentials  for  persuasive  debating.  It  is 
fundamental  that,  if  you  are  to  produce  certain 
beliefs  in  others,  you  must  hold  those  beliefs  your- 
self. And  the  earnestness  of  a  man  with  con- 
victions will  go  far  toward  making  his  speech 
persuasive  and  covering  up  many  flaws  in  his  ar- 
gument. People  in  general  hold  their  opinions  so 
loosely  that  a  man  who  believes  anything  with  his 
whole  heart  is  sure  to  make  converts.  "In  argu- 
ment," says  Emerson,  "the  most  important  is  the 
dry  light  of  intelligence;  but  in  persuasion  the  es- 
sential thing  is  heat,  and  heat  comes  of  sincerity." 

Real  earnestness  will  be  indicated  by  these  two 
paradoxical  characteristics — positiveness  and  mod- 
esty. A  debater  should  be  an  advocate,  not  a 
judge.  His  convictions  on  a  given  question  should 


PERSUASION  239 

lead  him  to  a  sure,  positive  conclusion  regarding 
it,  and  this  attitude  of  positiveness  should  be  ap- 
parent in  his  debating.  The  weak-kneed,  wishy- 
washy,  vacillating  style  accomplishes  nothing. 
How  often  have  we  heard  debates  where  a  speaker 
says,  in  substance,  "Some  say  this  about  this  ques- 
tion and  some  say  this.  I  rather  think  this  is  the 
way  we  should  look  at  it ' ' — and  he  ends  by  leaving 
the  hearers  somewhat  uncertain  as  to  just  where 
he  stands  on  the  question,  because  he  is  apparently 
not  altogether  certain  himself.  Effective  debat- 
ing requires  that  the  speaker  leave  the  impression 
that  he  has  reached  an  unqualified  conclusion  about 
a  question  and  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  about 
the  correctness  of  his  position.  And  this  very 
positiveness,  born  of  earnest  conviction,  will  carry 
with  it  the  quality  of  modesty.  That  is,  the  bur- 
den of  the  speaker's  plea  will  be,  not  "Hear  me 
for  myself,"  but  "Hear  me  for  my  cause.'1  He 
will  sink  the  individual,  and  put  forth  his  subject- 
matter,  and  let  that  speak.  This  does  not  mean, 
of  course,  that  one  should  not  have  the  courage- 
even  the  physical  courage — of  his  convictions;  it 
means  that  for  the  most  effective  debating  a  man's 
argument  should  be  kept  in  the  foreground  and 
his  personality  in  the  background.  There  are  al- 
ways a  small  percentage  of  our  public  men  who  per- 
sist in  the  too  frequent  use  of  the  pronoun  "I," 
and  who  mar  the  effect  of  their  public  discussions 
by  an  apparent  effort  to  produce  the  impression 
that  they  are  of  more  importance  than  the  subject 
under  discussion.  This  same  attitude  shows  itself 


240  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

in  student  debating  when  a  speaker  says,  "J  think 
so  and  so  about  this  point,  and  I  think  that  the 
argument  of  my  opponent  is  untenable,"  etc.— 
while  the  unuttered  comment  of  the  audience  is, 
"Who  cares  what  you  think?  Show  us  facts  and 
arguments,  and  we  will  decide  for  ourselves  what 
we  shall  think.*' 

In  actual  life  one  would,  of  course,  argue  for  that 
side  of  a  question  that  accords  with  his  convictions. 
In  school  and  college  debating,  as  in  the  practice  of 
law,  this  may  not  always  be  the  case,  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  speaker  may  not  be  both  sincere 
and  earnest.  He  is  not  to  decide  a  debatable  ques- 
tion in  advance,  but  is  to  leave  that  for  others; 
he  is  to  present  the  proof  appertaining  to  his  side, 
and  vindicate  it  before  his  hearers.  And  herein 
lies  another  distinction  between  school  and  college 
debating,  as  it  is  usually  carried  on,  and  the  real 
discussions  of  real  life;  in  the  one  case,  the  pri- 
mary object  is  to  win  the  debate;  in  the  other,  the 
primary  object  is  to  find  the  truth.  It  may  be  an- 
swered that  it  all  amounts  to  the  same  thing. 
Possibly  so,  but  sometimes  not.  The  ambition  to 
turn  out  a  "winning  team"  often  leads,  as  in 
athletics,  to  professionalism  and  efforts  to  win  at 
any  cost,  even  by  " trick  plays."  Thus  one  of  the 
foremost  teachers  of  argumentation  in  this  country, 
Prof.  George  P.  Baker,  of  Harvard,  has  pointed  out 
that  intercollegiate  debating  "is  becoming  more 
and  more  a  highly  developed  special  form  of  de- 
bate— an  intellectual  sport."  It  by  no  means  rep- 
resents all  forms  of  public  discussion,  nor  all  kinds 


PERSUASION  241 

of  debating;  and  the  decision  of  the  judges  is,  after 
all,  only  an  incident;  especially  so  since  no  abso- 
lute standards  for  judgment  have  been  or  can  be 
laid  down.  In  any  case,  when  school  and  college 
debating  goes  beyond  the  point  of  friendly  rivalry; 
when  a  victory  is  so  emphasized  that  the  training 
derived  from  honorably  striving  for  it  is  lost  sight 
of;  when  a  warlike  desire  to  vanquish  a  foe  is 
greater  than  the  desire  to  convince  and  persuade 
men  of  a  truth,  and  the  guiding  principles  of  sin- 
cerity and  earnestness  are  thus  disregarded — then 
such  contests  become  of  doubtful  value. 

In  this  connection,  two  admonitions  may  well 
be  heeded  regarding  what  may  be  termed  the  ethics 
of  debate:  (i)  Be  honest,  and  (2)  be  respectful 
to  your  opponent  and  to  his  argument. 

i.  The  necessity  for  honesty  arises  in  two 
ways:  in  the  presentation  of  your  own  arguments, 
and  in  the  handling  of  those  of  your  opponent.  A 
debater,  for  instance,  is  often  tempted  to  "doctor" 
evidence,  as  in  the  statement  of  statistics  or  the 
quotation  from  an  authority  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  make  them  appear  to  prove  something  quite 
different  from  what  they  really  prove.  Not  that 
one  should  argue  the  other  side  of  the  case — leave 
that  for  the  opponent.  It  is  neither  necessary  nor 
proper  in  debating,  any  more  than  in  other  things 
in  life,  always  to  disclose  the  whole  truth;  but  the 
point  is,  when  anything  is  told,  it  should  be  the 
truth.  And  he  who  attempts  to  gain  an  unfair  ad- 
vantage by  violating  this  principle  most  usually 


242  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

only  cheats  himself,  for  let  a  single  such  case  be 
pointed  out  by  an  opponent,  and  the  audience  at 
once  becomes  suspicious  that  "he  who  is  false  in 
one  is  false  in  all."  Again,  whenever  you  have 
occasion  to  restate  an  argument  of  your  opponent, 
state  it  fairly.  In  this  respect  the  amateur  in  de- 
bate needs  specially  to  watch  himself.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  foolish  to  say  that  your  opponent  said 
so  and  so  when  the  hearers  know  better.  In  the 
second  place,  a  desire  to  erect  straw  men  to  knock 
over  often  leads  a  careless  debater  to  misrepresent 
— not  intentionally,  perhaps — an  opponent's  posi- 
tion regarding  a  mooted  point;  but  this  is  also 
fatal,  for  any  appearance  of  unfairness  in  the 
handling  of  your  opponent's  argument  only  preju- 
dices the  audience  against  your  own  argument. 
The  fault  arises  from  what  John  Quincy  Adams, 
in  his  "Lectures  on  Rhetoric  and  Oratory,"  calls 
the  error  of  answering  yourself  instead  of  your 
opponent.  In  Lecture  XXII  he  says: 

But  the  most  inexcusable  of  all  the  errors  in  confuta- 
tion is  that  of  answering  yourself  instead  of  your  adver- 
sary, which  is  done  whenever  you  suppress,  or  mutilate, 
or  obscure,  or  misstate  his  reasoning,  and  then  reply,  not 
to  his  positions,  but  to  those  which  you  have  substituted 
in  their  stead.  This  practice  is  often  the  result  of  mis- 
apprehension, when  a  .disputant  mistakes  the  point  of  the 
argument  urged  by  his  adversary;  but  it  often  arises  also 
from  design,  in  which  case  it  should  be  clearly  detected 
and  indignantly  exposed.  The  duty  of  a  disputant  is 
fairly  to  take  and  fully  to  repel  the  idea  of  his  opponent, 
but  not  his  own.  To  misrepresent  the  meaning  of  your 


PERSUASION  243 

antagonist  evinces  a  want  of  candor  which  the  auditory 
seldom  fail  to  perceive,  and  which  engages  their  feelings 
in  his  favor.  When  involved  in  controversy,  then,  never 
start  against  yourself  frivolous  objections  for  the  sake  of 
showing  how  easily  you  can  answer  them.  .  .  .  There  can 
be  no  possible  advantage  in  supposing  our  antagonist  a 
fool.  The  most  probable  effect  of  such  an  imagination 
is  to  prove  ourselves  so. 

2.  Observation  of  student  debating,  as  well  as 
of  public  discussions  generally,  teaches  the  ne- 
cessity for  the  cultivation  by  the  debater  of  an  at- 
titude of  respect  toward  an  opponent  and  his  argu- 
ment. Remember  that  a  person  opposing  you  in 
argument  is  not  an  enemy,  but  an  opponent ;  not  a 
falsifier  of  truth,  but  one  who  is  in  error  and  whom 
you  are  to  set  right.  He  is  not  to  be  vanquished, 
but  made  to  see  the  truth.  Furthermore,  have  con- 
sideration for  the  ideas  of  another :  "Every  man  with 
a  new  thought  may  be  a  Columbus  in  disguise." 
In  any  case,  he  is  entitled  to  a  respectful  hearing. 

It  is  said  of  Pericles  that  when  interrupted  in  a 
speech  "he  gave  way  and  never  answered  sharply, 
nor  used  his  position  to  the  other's  discomfiture. 
In  his  speeches  there  was  no  challenge,  no  vituper- 
ation, no  irony,  no  arraignment.  He  assumed  that 
everybody  was  honest,  everybody  just,  and  that 
all  men  were  doing  what  they  thought  was  best  for 
themselves  and  others.  His  enemies  were  not 
rogues — simply  good  men  who  were  temporarily 
in  error."1  Non-recognition  of  this  principle  is 

1  Elbert  Hubbard,  in  Little  Journeys  for  January,  1905. 


244  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

shown  whenever  a  student  uses  such  expressions  as, 
"He  gets  up  here  and  foolishly  asserts  so  and  so," 
"He  harps  about  this  point,"  "We  now  have  him 
crowded  to  the  wall — he  is  completely  cornered." 
Avoid  any  attempt  to  be  a  "smart"  debater,  using 
any  of  the  stock  jokes  usually  associated  with  the 
country-school  debate;  as,  "The  gentleman  speaks 
as  though  he  really  believes  what  he  says,"  or  "He 
is  like  a  bird  flying  along  a  rail  fence — you  can't 
tell  any  one  moment  which  side  he  is  on,"  etc. 
But  it  may  be  perfectly  plain  to  the  audience 
"which  side  he  is  on,"  in  which  case  such  remarks 
are  worse  than  useless.  Other  exhibitions  of  a  lack 
of  due  respect  and  of  a  proper  attitude  toward 
those  on  the  other  side  are  shown  when  a  speaker 
dramatically  challenges  his  opponents  by  address- 
ing them  alone,  accompanied,  it  may  be,  with  a 
quasi  -  withering  look  or  gesture;  or  flaunts  an 
authority  in  their  faces;  or  otherwise  conducts 
himself  in  a  hysterical  fashion,  when  there  is  no 
especial  cause  for  excitement  and  when  the  refu- 
tation would  be  far  more  effective  if  presented  in 
a  respectful  and  dignified  manner. 

Courtesy,  aside  from  being  a  fundamental  qual- 
ity of  the  gentleman,  in  debate  helps  to  win  an 
audience  far  more  than  students  often  realize. 
Ridicule  and  irony  are  seldom  helpful.  Irony  that 
springs  from  personal  spleen  and  malignant  con- 
tempt for  those  against  whom  it  is  directed  is 
neither  justifiable  nor  effective.  There  are  times, 
to  be  sure,  when  irony  may  be  as  a  "terrible  and 
fiery  finger,  shriveling  falsehood  from  the  souls  of 


PERSUASION  245 

men,"  but  it  is  a  dangerous  weapon,  and  should  be 
used  only  in  extreme  cases.  It  may  happen,  of 
course,  that  one  needs  to  answer  a  fool  according 
to  his  folly.  Sometimes  a  case  may  be,  as  the 
lawyers  say,  ''laughed  out  of  court."  But  when  it 
becomes  necessary  to  make  fun  of  an  opponent's 
argument,  do  so  good-naturedly.  As  a  general  rule 
beware  of  the  ad  hominem  argument.  Anyhow, 
the  use  of  personalities  is  petty,  in  poor  taste,  and 
is  trying  to  an  audience  even  of  the  most  ordinary 
intelligence;  people  generally  are  growing  less  and 
less  tolerant  of  slander  and  personal  abuse.  And 
above  all,  in  the  stress  of  a  hotly  contested  debate, 
a  participant  should  watch  his  temper.  It  has  be- 
come a  truism  that  whenever  in  an  argument  a 
man  gets  angry,  he  is  as  good  as  beaten.  "Argu- 
ments cannot  be  answered  with  insults;  anger 
blows  out  the  lamp  of  the  mind.  In  the  examina- 
tion of  a  great  and  important  question,  be  serene, 
slow-pulsed,  and  calm."  If  not  "calm,"  at  least 
self-controlled.  In  fine,  the  guiding  principle  in 
debate  should  be  the  subordination  of  partisanship 
and  personalities  to  a  search  for  truth. 

In  all  these  ways,  then — by  appeals  to  emotions 
related  to  the  argument  and  adapted  to  the  audi- 
ence, by  the  use  of  the  rhetorical  qualities  of  con- 
creteness,  direct  discourse,  and  emphasis,  and  by 
the  manner  of  delivery — persuasion  may  be  made 
to  supplement  and  reinforce  conviction. 

Manner  of  Delivery. — The  most  important  thing 
in  delivery  is  to  know  what  you  are  going  to  say. 
There  is  no  substitute  for  this.  However,  the  best 

17 


246  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

prepared  speech  may  be  marred  by  a  poor  delivery. 
The  manner  of  speaking  is  so  obvious  that  it  never 
escapes  the  attention  of  the  audience.  A  poor 
argument  now  and  then  may  elude  detection,  but 
"bad  form"  in  delivery,  never;  it  is,  therefore,  of 
more  importance  than  many  debaters  suppose. 

It  is  impracticable  to  go  into  details  concerning 
platform  delivery.  The  student  who  desires  to  be- 
come an  effective  debater  should,  as  early  as  pos- 
sible, receive  sound  and  sensible  training  in  the 
fundamentals  of  expression — namely,  enunciation, 
pitch,  inflection,  emphasis,  volume,  loudness,  vocal 
quality,  etc.  Assuming  that  this  preliminary  train- 
ing has  not  been  neglected,  a  few  suggestions  on 
delivery  of  special  interest  to  debaters  may  be 
helpful. 

Stand  erect  with  weight  usually  on  the  forward 
foot.  Do  not  walk  to  and  fro  parallel  with  the 
platform.  Move  about,  easily  and  noiselessly,  on 
your  feet,  but  seldom  leave  your  place  at  the  center 
of  the  platform.  Gesturing  with  the  hands  for 
emphasis  and  description  is  desirable,  but  must  be 
graceful  and  used  sparingly;  debating  is  an  in- 
tellectual process,  not  emotional.  Never  gesture 
with  your  hand  across  the  middle  line  of  your  body. 
Always  face  your  audience  squarely;  move  the 
entire  body,  not  only  your  head,  when  you  desire 
to  speak  to  your  opponents  on  the  platform,  or 
to  different  sections  of  the  audience.  The  index 
finger,  rather  than  the  open  hand,  marks  the  in- 
tellectual man. 

Speak  clearly  and  distinctly,  and  loud  enough  to 


PERSUASION  247 

be  heard  in  all  parts  of  the  room.  The  key  should 
be  normal,  but  marked  with  changes  in  pitch  and 
inflection.  The  quality  should  be  pure,  firm, 
resonant,  and  pleasing.  Enunciation  must  be  dis- 
tinct. Do  not  say,  "La's  an'  genTm'." 

The  general  style  of  delivery  should  be  strong 
and  earnest — conversational.  Make  your  speak- 
ing direct,  strong  talk.  Do  not  speak  as  though 
you  were  delivering  an  oration  or  a  sermon.  Avoid 
all  slang  and  other  eccentricities  in  speech  and 
gesture.  Be  absolutely  positive  that  you  pro- 
nounce every  word  correctly.  Your  time  is  limited, 
therefore  get  in  all  the  arguments  you  can  in  the 
time  allotted.  Speak  as  rapidly  as  you  can,  but 
never  sacrifice  distinctness  and  force  for  speed. 
What  matters  it  how  much  you  say  if  you  are  not 
understood?  Always  look  your  audience  in  the 
face;  do  not  look  out  of  the  window,  up  at  the 
ceiling,  or  at  your  feet.  Speak  as  though  it  were  a 
matter  of  life  and  death.  Know  your  subject,  then 
discuss  it  with  all  the  force  and  earnestness  of  a 
live  man  who  has  a  vital  message  for  his  hearers. 


EXERCISES 

i.  For  practice  in  adapting  persuasion  to  a  particular  au- 
dience take  some  such  proposition  as:   Our  State  Legislature 

should  appropriate  $ to  this  institution  for  [a  designated 

purpose].  Write  out  an  argument  to  be  presented,  say,  to  the 
legislative  committee  to  whom  this  matter  has  been  referred. 
Now  suppose  you  were  to  present  the  same  line  of  argument 
to  a  country  audience  during  a  political  campaign;  how  would 
you  revise  your  first  speech? 


248  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

2.  Put  the  following  statements  and  arguments  in  concrete 
form  by  the  use  of  a  specific  example,  an  illustration,  an  anec- 
dote, or  some  form  of  figurative  language: 

(a)  A  member  of  a  legislative  body  should  not  serve  as  an 
attorney  in  any  manner  for  a  public-service  corpora- 
tion.    Since  corporations  of  this  class  are  likely  to  be 
subjects  for  legislation,  an  attorneyship  for  such  cor- 
porations  is   incompatible   with   faithful  legislative 
service. 

(b)  As  the  twig  is  bent  the  tree  is  inclined. 

(c)  In  politics,  as  in  other  relations  of  life,  honesty  is  the 
best  policy. 

(d)  Murder  will  out. 

(e)  Eloquence  results  from  a  conjunction  of  the  man,  the 
subject,  and  the  occasion. 

(/)    The  mass  of  mankind  cannot  be  instructed  or  in- 
fluenced by  abstractions, 
(g)    Diligence  is  the  price  of  success. 
(h)   In  times  of  peril  strong  men  come  to  the  front. 
(i)    Our  multimillionaires  are  a  menace  to  society. 
(/)    Ours  is  a  government  of  public  opinion. 
(k)   "America  is  another  name  for  opportunity." 

3.  Take  paragraph  30  of  Burke's  speech  on  "Conciliation 
with  the  American  Colonies"  (Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory, 
pages  24-25),  and  let  the  student  note  the  logical  sequence  of 
sentences  by  underscoring  the  words  of  explicit  reference  which 
indicate  such  sequence. 

4.  To  illustrate  persuasion  arising  from  the  adaptation  of 
material  to  a  particular  audience,  analyze  and  discuss  with  the 
class  the  extracts  from  the  Lincoln-Douglas  debates  (Master- 
pieces, pages  142-151).    Further  examples  in  the  same  volume 
may  be  found  on  the  following  pages:   192-193,  214-218,  258- 
259,  263-264,  327-328;   and  an  illustration  arising  from  the 
relation  of  the  speaker  to  his  subject  will  be  found  in  the 
opening  of  Webster's  address  (pages  65-66). 


IX 

METHODS    IN    SCHOOL    AND    COLLEGE    DEBATING 

AS  distinguished  from  debating  generally,  the 
*»  practice  for  training  involved  in  the  debates  of 
school  and  college  demands  special  consideration 
as  to  the  organization  and  conduct  of  such  debates. 
Whether  in  a  class  exercise,  a  debating  or  literary 
society,  or  an  inter-school  debate,  the  methods  of 
procedure  are  essentially  the  same. 

General  Organization  and  Conduct  of  a  Debate. — 
There  are  usually  either  two  or  three  speakers  on 
each  side,  with  a  given  time  limit  for  speaking, 
and  varying  rules  as  to  rebuttal  speeches.  There 
being  three  debaters,  say,  on  a  side,  no  one  speaker 
is  called  upon,  nor  should  he  attempt,  to  cover  the 
whole  case  for  his  side — unless  by  way  of  outline  or 
general  summary.  That  is,  there  must  be  "  team- 
work," each  member  of  the  team  having  a  definite 
task  to  accomplish.  It  is  therefore  necessary  that 
the  speakers  on  each  side  should  look  to  a  careful  or- 
ganization of  their  argument  as  a  whole  by  a  three- 
fold division,  each  speaker  being  assigned  some  one 
main  line  of  argument.  The  division  should  be,  first, 
exhaustive — that  is,  the  whole  field  of  the  argument 
should  be  covered;  and,  secondly,  logical — that  is, 
the  divisions  should  be  related  to  each  other  by  nat- 


250  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

ural  sequence,  and  such  relation  should  be  made  plain 
to  the  audience  as  each  speaker  on  a  side  presents 
his  particular  argument.  Whenever  necessary,  an 
interpretation  of  the  question,  if  practicable,  should 
be  agreed  upon  in  a  preliminary  conference,  in 
order  that  all  quibbling  over  the  meaning  of  terms 
may  be  avoided.  In  class  exercises  the  author 
has  found  it  a  good  plan  to  conduct  debates  in 
accordance  with  the  following  rules  of  procedure: 

1.  The  first-named  affirmative  and  negative  speakers 
are,  respectively,  the  leaders  for  each  debate,  with  the 
second-named  speakers  as  alternates. 

2.  One  week  prior  to  any  debate  the  respective  leaders 
will  confer  with  their  colleagues  and  divide  the  argument 
into  as  many  divisions  as  there  are  speakers,  assigning 
points  and  references  from  the  brief  previously  prepared. 

3.  Immediately  preceding  the  debate  each  leader  will 
hand  to  the  instructor  a  brief  written  outline  of  the 
complete  argument,  with  the  respective  assignments; 
and  each  speaker  will  make  in  advance  a  written  outline 
of  his  particular  argument  and  hand  the  same  to  the 
instructor  when  called  upon  for  the  oral  presentation. 

4.  The  arguments  must  be  presented  without  notes. 
Speakers  will  be  allowed  six  to  eight  minutes  each,  ac- 
cording to  the  number  participating,  a  one-minute  warn- 
ing bell  being  rung.     The  affirmative  leader  will  have 
three  minutes  for  rejoinder.     Extempore  three-minute 
speeches  in  rebuttal,  by  unassigned  members  of  the  class, 
may  be  given,  as  time  permits. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Rule  2  above  implies  that  at 
least  the  leaders  shall  have  briefed  a  question  in 
advance.  This  requirement  is  essential  for  pre- 
venting superficial  work,  and  it  is  desirable,  of 


METHODS   IN    DEBATING         251 

course,  that  all  those  assigned  for  a  given  debate 
shall  have  briefed  the  question.  In  any  event,  no 
debater  should  make  the  mistake  of  preparing  his 
particular  line  of  argument  solely.  True,  his  main 
work  is  that  of  presenting  and  defending  his  par- 
ticular division  of  the  proof,  but  he  should  also 
know  the  case  as  a  whole.  Thus  will  he  be  able 
not  only  to  see  clearly  the  relation  of  his  particular 
argument  to  the  whole  case  for  his  side  and  to 
make  such  relation  clear  to  the  audience,  but  also 
prepared  to  rush  to  the  defense  of  a  colleague  when 
the  exigencies  of  the  debate  so  demand. 


THE    WORK) FOR    EACH    SPEAKER 

With  the  debate  organized  as  above  indicated,  let 
us  examine — necessarily  in  a  general  way — a  little 
more  in  detail  the  work  for  each  speaker. 

First  Affirmative  Speech. — The  opening  by  the 
affirmative  leader  must  be,  first  of  all,  introductory 
and  expository.  He  must  first  arouse  interest  in 
the  subject  for  debate,  show  how  it  is  related  to  the 
interests  of  the  audience,  make  clear  the  meaning  of 
the  question,  point  out  the  main  issues,  show  how 
the  affirmative  side  proposes  to  establish  its  case, 
and  then  move  into  the  first  division  of  his  proof. 
In  other  words,  he  should  cover  first  the  essential 
points  as  outlined  for  the  introduction  of  his  brief. 
But  the  opening  speech  should  be  something  more 
than  merely  introductory;  it  should  take  up  and 
develop  at  least  one  line  of  argument,  so  that  some 
real  progress  is  made  in  the  proof  before  the  nega- 


252  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

tive  side  takes  up  the  discussion.  An  affirmative 
leader  is  sometimes  apt  to  spend  so  much  time  in 
his  introduction  that  he  has  no  time  left  for  posi- 
tive proof.  He  must  make  a  clear  and  plausible 
prima  facie  case,  and  then  reinforce  this  by  evi- 
dence bearing  on  at  least  one  of  the  main  issues 
for  proof.  In  closing,  it  is  frequently  a  good  plan, 
if  the  question  lends  itself  to  this  method,  to  sub- 
mit certain  questions  or  propositions  which  the 
negative  are  bound  to  answer  or  prove  in  order  to 
meet  the  case  you  have  made  out. 

First  Negative  Speech. — The  opening  by  the 
first  negative  speaker  must  almost  always  be  a  di- 
rect reply  to  the  first  speaker  for  the  affirmative. 
To  that  end,  he  must  quickly  decide  his  answers  to 
such  questions  as:  Is  the  introduction  by  the  af- 
firmative acceptable?  Do  you  agree  with  his  in- 
terpretation of  the  question?  Is  his  analysis  satis- 
factory, especially  as  to  the  issues  and  the  burden 
of  proof?  Does  the  outline  of  the  affirmative 
leader  cover  the  case?  Is  the  proof  he  has  offered 
directly  opposed  to  your  assigned  line  of  argu- 
ment? If  not,  can  you  safely  leave  it  for  one  of 
your  colleagues  to  answer  in  detail?  If  so,  deal 
it  one  blow,  and  explain  to  the  audience  that  you 
leave  the  details  of  refutation  to  a  colleague  as 
belonging  to  his  division  of  the  negative  proof  as 
a  whole;  that  is,  do  not  give  the  impression  of 
dodging  the  question  by  an  arbitrary  postponement. 
Now  outline  the  case  for  the  negative  and  move 
into  the  proof  of  your  assigned  division.  In  clos- 
ing, propound,  in  turn,  it  may  be,  questions  of  the 


METHODS    IN    DEBATING         253 

affirmative  which  you  conceive  they  are  bound  to 
answer  in  order  to  establish  their  case. 

The  Second  Speeches. — The  speakers  second  in 
order,  affirmative  and  negative,  must  elaborate  and 
carry  on.  Do  you  accept  the  task  imposed  by  the 
last  speaker?  If  not,  readjust  the  case,  showing 
your  right  to  do  so.  Rapidly  summarize  your  col- 
league's preceding  argument  and,  when  necessary, 
strengthen  it  against  the  attack  of  the  preceding 
speaker.  Take  up  your  division  of  the  proof, 
showing  its  relation  to  the  argument  of  your  col- 
league. Summarize  your  own  and  your  colleague's 
proof  up  to  this  point,  and  make  it  clear  to  the 
hearers  that  the  proof  to  be  offered  by  the  col- 
league who  will  follow  completes  a  logical  and 
strong  case  for  your  side. 

The  Third  Speeches. — Each  of  the  last  speakers 
in  direct  debate  has  both  to  elaborate  the  final 
points  and  to  conclude.  He  must  complete  the 
proof  as  first  outlined,  close  up  any  gaps  that  have 
been  left  by  his  colleagues  or  made  by  his  oppo- 
nents, summarize  the  whole  proof  for  his  side,  and 
leave  as  vivid  an  impression  as  possible  regarding 
the  strength  of  his  side  as  compared  with  that  of 
his  opponents.  To  ''amplify  and  diminish,"  in 
concluding,  is  a  very  effective  method.  The  con- 
clusion should  not  only  sum  up,  but  it  should  also 
show  that  the  final  points  complete  a  strong  case- 
that  they  clinch  the  proof. 

Rebuttal  Speeches. — It  will  be  seen  that  the  rules 
to  govern  class  exercises,  as  previously  stated,  pro- 
vide for  a  brief  speech  in  rejoinder  by  the  affirm^- 


254  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

live  leader.  The  rules  for  interscholastic  and  in- 
tercollegiate debates  vary  as  to  the  provisions  for 
second  speeches;  sometimes  a  representative  from 
each  side,  and  again  each  member  of  the  teams, 
has  a  speech  in  rebuttal.  In  the  latter  case  the 
points  to  be  dealt  with  by  each  speaker  are  deter- 
mined in  part  in  a  consultation  with  his  colleagues; 
but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  first  business  of 
any  speaker  in  rebuttal  is  to  defend  and  strengthen 
his  particular  division  of  the  proof — the  necessity 
for  team-work  must  never  be  lost  sight  of.  It 
should  also  be  remembered  that  a  speech  in  re- 
buttal should  introduce  no  new  matter;  that  is,  it 
is  not  permissible  to  present  new  lines  of  proof, 
although  new  evidence  may  be  introduced  to  sus- 
tain a  controverted  point  which  has  been  presented 
in  the  direct  debate.  Further  than  this,  little  can 
be  said  of  any  real  value  in  addition  to  what  was 
said  in  the  chapter  on  Refutation.  It  may  be 
worth  while  repeating  here,  however,  that  rebuttal 
which  degenerates  into  scattering  objections  makes 
little  total  impression;  that  the  repetition  of  a 
number  of  minor  points  carries  no  weight ;  and  that 
an  attempt  to  make  any  sort  of  a  detailed  reply 
to  a  mass  of  arguments  in  a  few  minutes  is  futile 
and  confusing.  What  is  needed  is  to  select  the 
fundamental  points,  show  that  they  are  funda- 
mental, that  they  have  been  proved,  and  that 
therefore  the  proposition  is  proved.  Rebuttal,  like 
direct  proof,  must  be  massed  on  main  points.  And 
there  is  also  danger  of  mere  assertion  in  rebuttal, 
no  less  than  in  direct  proof.  It  will  ordinarily 


METHODS    IN    DEBATING         255 

not  do  to  say,  for  example,  "My  colleague  has  al- 
ready met  this  point,"  but  it  is  necessary  to  remind 
the  hearers,  by  rapid  review,  just  how  he  has  met 
it,  and  why  his  proof  should  be  accepted  in  prefer- 
ence to  that  offered  against  him. 

The  suggestions  offered  in  this  chapter  are,  after 
all,  only  suggestions.  They  are  by  no  means  in- 
tended to  furnish  a  system  to  which  all  debates 
must  conform.  The  necessity  for  a  well-organized 
plan,  however,  so  that  the  work  of  each  debater 
dovetails  into  that  of  his  colleagues,  cannot  be  too 
strongly  emphasized,  for  the  lack  of  such  organiza- 
tion is  the  bane  of  much  student  debating.  The 
affirmative  speakers  must  establish  a  line  of  proof 
all  leading  to  the  same  end — they  must  make  out  a 
case.  The  speakers  on  the  negative,  too,  as  we 
have  previously  seen,  must  usually  do  something 
more  than  simply  attack  the  proof  offered  by  the 
affirmative;  they  must  also  make  out  a  case  to  re- 
place that  of  the  affirmative.  Each  side  should 
ordinarily  hew  close  to  the  line  previously  marked 
out.  It  may  sometimes  happen,  of  course,  that 
one  side  may  have  to  abandon  its  prepared  line  of 
argument  in  order  to  meet  the  case  as  presented 
by  the  other  side,  but  such  instances  are  rare. 

But  while  successful  team  debates  have  rigid  re- 
quirements as  to  organization  of  the  proof  and  di- 
vision of  labor,  good  debating  must,  on  the  other 
hand,  necessarily  be  flexible.  In  tracing  the  gen- 
eral progress  of  a  debate  we  noted  the  necessity 
for  a  speaker's  quickly  deciding  how  he  should 
meet  a  given  argument  on  the  other  side,  and  how 


256  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

fully  he  should  meet  it,  always  bearing  in  mind 
that  he  must  leave  time  for  his  own  constructive 
proof.  He  who  has  not  learned  to  depart,  when- 
ever the  state  of  the  discussion  demands  it,  from 
a  cut-and-dried  speech  is  at  a  great — and  usually 
a  fatal — disadvantage.  True,  in  most  questions  a 
thorough  study  of  both  sides  will  reveal  the  lead- 
ing arguments  pro  and  con,  so  that  one  may  pre- 
pare rebuttal  largely  in  advance.  But  general 
preparation  only  is  possible,  for  one  never  knows 
just  what  points  he  will  be  called  upon  to  refute, 
nor  just  how  they  may  best  be  treated,  until  they 
are  presented  by  the  other  side  in  actual  debate. 
And  it  is  this  very  uncertainty,  this  necessity  of 
quickly  adjusting  methods  of  attack  and  defense, 
that  makes  debating  the  most  flexible,  the  most 
difficult,  and  withal  the  most  stimulating  of  all 
forms  of  public  speaking. 

EXERCISES 

Discuss  assigned  debates  for  the  purpose  of  determining 
how  well  the  foregoing  principles  have  been  carried  out. 
Similar  exercises  may  be  devoted  to  a  study  of  the  Lincoln- 
Douglas  debates  (Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oraiory,  pages  133- 
146,  or  Bouton's  edition  of  these  debates,  will  furnish  con- 
venient texts),  and  of  the  Hayne-Webster  debate  (The  Great 
Debate,  Riverside  Series).  See  also  "Specimen  Debate," 
Appendix  IL 


APPENDICES 


APPENDICES 
I 

QUESTIONS   FOR   DEBATE 

THE  following  questions  in  the  various  fields  of  poli- 
tics, economics,  sociology,  education,  law,  history, 
and  current  events  have  been  tested,  for  the  most  part, 
in  class  exercises.  It  will  often  be  found  advantageous 
to  limit  general  propositions  to  a  particular  locality  or 
State. 

POLITICS   AND    GOVERNMENT 

1 .  A  young  man  casting  his  first  vote  at  the  next  Presi- 
dential election  should  vote  for  the  candidate  of  the 
party. 

2.  The  discrimination  against  the  Chinese,  in  our  im- 
migration laws,  is  unjustifiable. 

3.  The  Chinese-exclusion  law  should  be  extended  to 
the  Japanese. 

4.  The  white  citizens  of  the  Southern  States  are  justi- 
fied in  taking  all  peaceable  measures  to  insure  their 
political  supremacy. 

5.  Negroes  should  neither  be  enlisted  nor  commis- 
sioned in  the  United  States  Regular  Army. 

6.  The  Australian  ballot  system  should  be  generally 
adopted  in  the  United  States. 


260  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

7.  Government  by  commission,   similar  to  that  of 
Galveston,  Texas,  should  be  generally  adopted  by  the 
cities  of  the  United  States. 

8.  The  business-manager  plan  of   city   government, 
similar  to  that  of  Dayton,  Ohio,  should  be  generally 
adopted  by  the  cities  of  the  United  States. 

9.  The   President  of  the  United  States  should   be 
elected  for  a  term  of  six  years  and  should  be  ineligible 
for  re-election. 

10.  The  several  States  should  adopt  the  initiative  and 
referendum. 

n.  The  suffrage  should  require  an  educational  quali- 
fication. 

12.  Women  who  pay  taxes  should  have  the  right  to 
vote  at  municipal  elections. 

13.  Women  should  be  granted  the  suffrage  on  equal 
terms  with  men. 

14.  Compulsory  voting  should  be  introduced  by  the 
various  State  governments. 

15.  Independent  political  action  is  preferable  to  party 
loyalty,  as  a  means  of  securing  reform. 

1 6.  The  predominance  of  one  political  party  in  the 
Southern  States  is  opposed  to  the  best  interests  of  those 
States. 

17.  The  United  States  Government  should  operate 
an  express  system  in  connection  with  the  parcel  post. 
All  postmasters  should  be  elected  by  popular  vote  of 
the  communities  that  they  serve. 

1 8.  A  nation  advanced  in  civilization  is  justified,  in 
the  interests  of  humanity  at  large,  in  enforcing  its  au- 
thority upon  an  inferior  people. 

19.  The  United  States  Government  is  unsuited  to  the 
administration  of  colonial  dependencies. 

20.  The  Indian-agency  system  of  the  United  States 
Government  should  be  abolished. 


APPENDICES  261 

21.  The  United  States  should  maintain  a  larger  navy. 

22.  Conditions  demand  a  further  centralization  of 
power  in  the  Federal  Government. 

23.  In  actual  practice,  a  "liberal  construction"  of  the 
United  States  Constitution  has  always  proved  beneficial. 

24.  The  United  States  should  resist — by  force  if  need 
be — the  colonization  of  South  America  by  any  European 
power. 

25.  An  alliance  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  similar  to  the  latter's  alliance  with  Japan,  is 
desirable  and  expedient. 

26.  The  annexation  of  Canada  to  the  United  States, 
if  peaceably  effected,  would  be  to  the  best  interests  of 
both  countries. 

27.  Cuba  should  be  annexed  to  the  United  States  as 
soon  as  practicable. 

28.  The  United  States  should  establish  a  protecto- 
rate over  Mexico. 

29.  The  deportation  of  all  negroes  in  this  country  to 
one  of  our  island  possessions  offers  the  best  solution  of 
the  race  problem. 

30.  The  government  of  all  cities  in  America  should  be 
modeled  after  that  of  Glasgow,  Scotland. 

31.  The  United  States  should  permanently  retain  the 
Philippine  Islands. 

ECONOMICS   AND   SOCIOLOGY 

32.  The  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  should  conclude 
reciprocity  tariff  treaties  with  foreign  countries,  along 
lines  prescribed  by  Congress. 

33.  The  United  States  should  exclude  all  immigrants 
who  cannot  read  and  write  in  some  language. 

34.  Government  in  the  United  States  should  create 

18 


262  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

commissions  with  power  of  compulsory  arbitration  of 
disputes  between  employers  and  organized  labor. 

35.  The   adjudication   of   disputes   arising   between 
capital  and  labor  should  be  made  a  part  of  our  adminis- 
tration of  justice.    Granted:   (i)  that  labor  unions  may 
be  forced  to  incorporate,  if  necessary,  and  (2),  that 
courts  of  suitable  rules  of  procedure  be  created,   if 
desirable. 

36.  The  taxation  of  the  intangible  assets  of  private 
corporations  is  desirable  and  practicable. 

37.  The  United  States  Government  should  assume 
control  of  the  anthracite  coal-mines. 

38.  The  National  Government  should  co-operate  with 
the  various  States,  or  civil  subdivisions  thereof,  in  the 
permanent  improvement  of  public  highways. 

39.  Consumers  generally  should  organize  to  protect 
themselves  against  the  exactions  of  labor  unions  and 
trusts. 

40.  Labor  unions  do  not  subserve  the  best  interests 
of  laboring  men. 

41.  Members  of  labor  unions  are  justified  in  resorting 
to  the  strike  for  preventing  the  employment  of  non- 
union laborers. 

42.  Interference  with  strikes  by  judicial  injunction  is 
a  menace  to  the  liberties  of  the  working  classes. 

43.  Trusts  should  be  suppressed. 

44.  The  cities  of  the  United  States  should  own  and 
operate  their  street-railway  systems. 

45.  Each  of  the  several  States  should  have  a  civil- 
service  law  providing  for  the  selection,  by  competitive 
examination,  of  all  appointive  officers  other  than  heads 
of  departments. 

46.  The  time  has  now  arrived  when  the  policy  of 
levying  a  purely  protective  tariff  should  be  abandoned 
by  the  United  States. 


APPENDICES  263 

47.  Subsidies  should  be  paid  for  the  development  of 
the  American  merchant  marine. 

48.  The  Monroe  Doctrine  should  no  longer  be  main- 
tained by  the  United  States. 

49.  The  United  States  and  the  several  States  should 
have  an  inheritance  tax. 

50.  The   several   States  should  establish  minimum- 
wage  schedules  for  unskilled  laborers. 

51.  The  several  States  should  adopt  a  system  of  old- 
age  pensions. 

52.  The  aims  and  principles  of  socialism  are  justifi- 
able. 

53.  The  single-tax  system  should  be  generally  adopted. 

54.  The   New  Zealand  system  of  taxation  of  real 
estate  should  be  adopted  in  the  United  States. 

55.  The  products  of  the  Philippine  Islands  should  be 
admitted  to  the  United  States  free  of  duty. 

56.  The  Norwegian  system  of  liquor-selling  should 
be  adopted  in  the  United  States. 

57.  The  New  York  system  of  high  license  combined 
with  local  option  is  the  most  practicable  method  of  deal- 
ing with  the  liquor  problem. 

58.  The  State  dispensary  system  offers  a  better  solu- 
tion of  the  liquor  problem  than  State  prohibition. 

59.  The  prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic  is  preferable 
to  any  system  of  license,  wherever  public  opinion  sanc- 
tions the  passage  of  such  a  law. 

60.  From  a  purely  economic  point  of  view,  the  liquor 
traffic  is  a  source  of  profit  to  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment. 

61.  The  traffic  in  liquor  should  be  prohibited  by  an 
amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution. 

62.  Eight  hours  should  be  the  standard  time  for  a 
day's  work. 

63.  Each  of  the  several  States  should  establish  and 


264  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

maintain  an  institution  similar  to  the  George  Junior 
Republic. 

64.  Large  cities  should  have  women  as  well  as  men  on 
their  police  force. 

EDUCATION 

65.  Women  should  be  admitted  to  all  American  uni- 
versities on  equal  terms  with  men. 

66.  Excepting  English,  the  fully  elective  system  of 
studies  should  be  introduced  into  all  American  univer- 
sities. 

67.  Compulsory  manual  training  should  be  introduced 
into  all  grammar  and  high  school  curriculums. 

68.  Separate  high  schools  should  be  established  for 
boys  and  for  girls. 

69.  The  rules  of  the  Simplified  Spelling  Board  should 
be  generally  adopted. 

70.  A  city  is  the  best  location  for  a  college. 

71.  The  college  course  leading  to  the  degree  of  Bach- 
elor of  Arts  should  be  reduced  to  three  years. 

72.  Commercial  courses  of  study  should  be  incor- 
porated in  all  college  and  high  school  curriculums. 

73.  The  honor  system  should  prevail  in  all  high  school 
and  college  examinations. 

74.  The  education  of  the  American  negro  should  be 
industrial  rather  than  liberal. 

75.  No  study  should  be  prescribed  in  a  college  cur- 
riculum primarily  because  of  its  value  as  a  means  of 
mental  discipline. 

76.  Is  the  study  of  Greek  and  Latin  essential  to  a 
liberal  education? 

77.  The    German    university    methods    should    be 
adopted  in  the  United  States. 

78.  Military  tactics  should  be  taught  in  the  public 
schools, 


APPENDICES  265 

79.  Football   should   not   be   encouraged   by   those 
having  charge  of  educational  institutions. 

80.  "Association"  football  is  preferable  to  the  Rugby 
game. 

81.  Freshmen  should  "be  excluded  from  all  university 
athletic  teams, 

82.  Freshmen  should  not  be  received  into  college 
fraternities 

83.  College  and  high  school  fraternities  and  sororities 
are  more  harmful  than  beneficial. 

84.  At  high  school  graduation  exercises  there  should 
be  no  speaking  by  members  of  the  graduating  class. 

85.  Each  of  the  States  should  have  a  compulsory  edu- 
cation law. 

86.  This  State  has  not  an  efficient  system  of  public 
schools. 

87.  Each  of  the  cities  and  villages  in  this  State  should 
have  and  enforce  a  curfew  ordinance. 

88.  The  curriculum  of  every  high  school  should  in- 
clude courses  in  public  speaking. 

89.  Literary  society  work  should  be  required  of  all 
students  in  this  school. 


LAW 

90.  Congress  should  have  the  exclusive  right  of  legisla- 
tion regarding  marriage  and  divorce  in  the  United  States. 

91.  In  the  Hayne-Webster  debate,  so  far  as  it  related 
to  the  origin  and  meaning  of  the  United  States  Consti- 
tution, Hayne  had  the  better  argument. 

92.  An  easier  method  of  amending  the  United  States 
Constitution  should  be  adopted. 

93 .  Life  imprisonment,  with  a  restricted  power  of  par- 
don by  the  executive,  should  be  substituted  for  capital 
punishment. 


266  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

94.  Circumstantial  evidence  should  be  sufficient  to 
convict  a  saloon-keeper  of  violation  of  the  excise  laws. 

95.  A  lawyer  is  not  justified  in  defending  a  man 
whom  he  knows  to  be  guilty. 

96.  The  penal  statutes  in  this  country  should  be  so 
revised  that  the  reform  of  the   criminal  is  the  sole 
object. 

97.  Expert  testimony  in  criminal  procedure  should  be 
abolished. 

98.  The  grand- jury  system  should  be  abolished. 

99.  A  married  woman  should  have  the  sole  control  of 
her  separate  property. 

100.  In  criminal  actions  three-fourths  of  a  jury  should 
be  competent  to  render  a  verdict. 

101.  Any  person  aiding  or  abetting  in  mob  violence 
amounting  to  a  crime  if  committed  by  an  individual, 
should  be  criminally  prosecuted;  and  to  that  end,  protec- 
tion should  be  furnished  by  State  or  Federal  troops, 
whenever  necessary. 

102.  In  every  case  of  alleged  crime  wherein  the  penalty 
is  capital  punishment  or  life  imprisonment,  the  nearest 
judge  in  any  court  of  record  should  have  power  to  im- 
mediately summon  a  grand  jury  to  investigate  and  a 
petit  jury  to  try ;  and  no  appeal  should  lie  from  the  ver- 
dict except  on  the  certificate  of  the  trial  judge  of  prob- 
able cause  for  appeal. 

103.  A  member  of  Congress  or  of  a  State  Legislature 
should  not  serve  in  any  manner  as  agent  or  attorney  for 
a  public-service  corporation. 

104.  Excepting  for  deliberate  and  intentional  self- 
injury,   an  employer  should  be  held  unconditionally 
liable  for  accidents  to  his  employees. 

105.  The  Pennypacker  Anti-libel  law  of  Pennsylvania 
is  an  unjustifiable  infringement  upon  the  freedom  of 
the  press. 


APPENDICES  267 

1 06.  The  Torrens  land-title  system  should  be  generally 
adopted. 

107.  The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of 
Marbury  vs.   Madison    (i    Cranch,    137)    is   not  well 
founded. 

1 08.  The  facts  did  not  justify  the  decision  reached  in 
the  case  of  Munn  vs.  Illinois  (94  U.  S.,  113). 


HISTORY   AND   CURRENT   EVENTS 

109.  The  Norsemen  discovered  America. 

no.  In  our  war  with  Mexico,  the  United  States  was 
an  unjustifiable  aggressor. 

in.  The  Spanish- American  War  was  unnecessary  and 
unjustifiable. 

112.  England's  aggressions  in  Africa  were  justifiable. 

113.  The  French  Revolution  was  justifiable. 

114.  Napoleon  III.  was  personally  responsible  for  the 
Franco-Prussian  War. 

115.  Richard  III.  was  a  worse  monarch  than  Charles  II . 

116.  Henry  VIII.  was  not  justified  in  suppressing  the 
monasteries. 

117.  The  English  system  of  government  is  preferable 
to  that  of  the  United  States. 

1 1 8.  Switzerland  has  a  better  form  of  government 
than  the  United  States. 

119.  The  imprisonment  of  Napoleon  at  St.  Helena 
was  justifiable. 

120.  Was  the  execution  of  Major  Andr£  justifiable? 

121.  Did  Aaron  Burr  aim  at  an  independent  em- 
pire? 

122.  Lincoln's  plan  of  reconstruction  was  preferable 
to  the  Congressional  plan. 

123.  The  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  United  States 
Constitution  should  be  repealed. 


268  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

124.  Webster  was  justified  in  his  attitude  toward  the 
Clay  Compromise. 

125.  John  Brown's  raid  did  more  harm  than  good. 

126.  The  English  parliamentary  system  should  be  ap- 
plied to  the  government  of  the  States. 

127.  The  taxation  of  the  English  colonies  in  America, 
which  led  to  the  Revolution,  was  in  accordance  with  the 
British  constitution. 

128.  President  Tyler's  veto  of  the  National  Bank  bill 
was  in  accordance  with  sound  public  policy. 

129.  President  Jackson's  theory,  that  the  executive  is 
constitutionally  independent  of  the  other  two  depart- 
ments of  government,  is  correct. 

130.  The  administration  of  Andrew  Jackson  did  more 
harm  than  good  to  this  country. 

131.  Queen  Elizabeth  was  a  worse  woman  than  Mary 
Queen  of  Scots. 

132.  Slavery  caused  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the 
United  States. 

133.  Should  Christian  Scientists  be  licensed  as  medical 
practitioners? 

134.  In  the  first  joint  debate  of  the  Lincoln-Douglas 
series,  Lincoln  had  the  better  argument. 

135.  The  methods  used  by  Mrs.  Carrie  Nation,  in  her 
anti-saloon  crusade  in  Kansas,  were  justified. 

136.  Mr.  Bryan's  idea,  that  the  ownership  of  trunk- 
line  railways  by  the  United  States  Government  will  ulti- 
mately prove  desirable,  is  correct. 

137.  The  school  authorities  of  San  Francisco  were 
justified  in  segregating  Japanese  pupils. 

138.  The  State  of  California  is  justified  in  her  stand 
against  land  ownership  by  aliens. 

139.  The  time  has  now  arrived  when  a  national  Pro- 
hibition party  should  be  organized  and  vigorously  sup- 
ported. 


APPENDICES  269 

140.  The  growing  indifference  to  church-going  in  the 
United  States  is  a  mark  of  social  retrogression. 

141.  The  advertisement  of  patent  medicines  should 
be  prohibited  by  law. 

142.  In  the  great   European   war,    the   invasion   of 
Belgium  by  Germany  was  justifiable. 

143.  In  place  of  competitive  armaments  for  national 
defense,  the  United  States  should  stand  for  collective 
armaments   for   international   defense    against    future 
wars. 

144.  The  United  States  should  refuse  to  go  to  war  for 
any  cause  whatsoever  without  first  referring  disputes 
with  foreign  nations  to  some  international  tribunal. 

145.  was  most  largely  responsible  for  the 

great  European  war. 

146.  The  United  States  Government  should  establish 
a  monopoly  in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  firearms, 
ammunition,  and  munitions  of  war. 

147.  A  declaration  of  war  should  be  made  only  by 
popular  vote. 


II 

SPECIMEN  DEBATE  ON  PREPAREDNESS 

UNIVERSITY   OF   TEXAS  VERSUS   UNIVERSITY  OF  MISSOURI 

QUESTION:  "Resolved,  That  there  should  be  a  material 
increase  in  the  armament  of  the  United  States  over  that 
existing  or  provided  for  on  August  I,  1915.  (By  armament 
is  meant  matters  of  defense,  both  military  and  naval.)" 

FIRST  AFFIRMATIVE 
CARL  B.  GALLOWAY,  TEXAS 

It  has  been  my  pleasure  during  my  lifetime  to  be  per- 
sonally and  intimately  acquainted  with  three  dogs.  The 
first  of  these  was  a  little  rat  terrier  with  a  stiff  tail  and 
a  limber  backbone.  That  little  fellow  was  wholly  un- 
able to  protect  himself  and  his  life  was  one  long  succession 
of  fighting.  The  second  was  a  powerful  bulldog,  amply 
prepared  to  defend  himself,  but  coupled  with  his  ''pre- 
paredness" he  had  an  aggressive,  domineering  attitude. 
He  tried  to  "lord  it  over"  all  his  dog  neighbors,  and  his 
life,  too,  was  a  long  succession  of  fighting.  And  then 
I  knew  a  third  dog,  a  magnificent  mastiff,  as  well  pre- 
pared to  defend  himself  as  the  bulldog,  but  without  the 
aggressive,  domineering  attitude.  He  demanded  that 
his  rights  be  respected  just  as  he  was  willing  to  respect 
the  rights  of  all  his  canine  friends.  And  that  dog  lived 
his  life  without  fighting,  and  "at  last  sank  to  sleep  with 
all  his  institutions  intact  and  his  personal  and  property 
rights  thoroughly  respected." 


APPENDICES  271 

This  is  as  true  of  nations  as  it  is  of  dogs.  That  nation 
that  is  unable  to  protect  itself  is  the  victim  of  all  great 
nations  who  are  able  to  protect  themselves.  China, 
poor  old  China,  the  football  of  all  the  other  nations  for 
the  past  two  hundred  years,  is  a  living  example  of  this 
rule.  "Whenever  any  nation  is  seized  with  a  sudden 
and  unaccountable  liking  for  a  certain  Chinese  port  it 
takes  that  port.  But  who  ever  heard  of  any  nation 
taking  a  port  in  Germany  or  in  England?"  What  policy 
do  you  choose  for  your  country?  The  defenseless  rat- 
terrier  policy?  We  of  the  Affirmative  would  not.  Now 
we  do  not  ask  that  America  adopt  the  aggressive, 
domineering,  bulldog  type  of  preparedness.  But  we  do 
ask  that  she  adopt  the  mastiff  policy,  that  she  place  her- 
self in  a  position  to  demand  and  enforce  respect  of  her 
rights,  just  as  she  respects  the  rights  of  others.  In  short, 
we  advocate  adequate  armament  for  defense  and  not 
for  aggression.  That  is  the  policy  that  we  of  the 
Affirmative  would  choose.  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative, 
what  policy  do  you  choose? 

But  some  might  ask,  "Why  is  there  a  need  for  any 
military  policy?"  Simply  for  the  reason  that  as  long  as 
both  right  and  wrong  exist  in  the  world  there  will  be 
an  inevitable  conflict  between  them,  and  the  progress 
and  triumph  of  right  can  only  be  assured  so  long  as  those 
who  sustain  the  right  are  stronger  than  those  who  as- 
sert the  wrong.  Upon  this  fundamental  proposition  is 
based  all  government.  In  the  early  days  each  individual 
man,  acting  as  his  own  separate  government,  enforced 
his  rights  by  the  strength  of  his  good  right  arm.  Then 
men  came  together  into  tribes,  and  tribes  into  nations, 
while  nations  separated  into  States,  counties,  and  cities. 
And  each  tribe  and  each  nation  was  and  is  compelled 
to  rely  upon  force  to  protect  its  rights,  while  each  State 
and  even  each  city  must  rely  upon  force  to  protect  the 


272  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

rights  of  one  citizen  from  invasion  by  others.  Now  if  it 
is  true  that  police  power  and  other  avenues  of  force  must 
be  maintained  to  protect  one  neighbor  from  another 
neighbor,  how  much  more  true  it  is  in  the  case  of  nation 
against  nation,  where  two  different  races,  with  different 
ideals  and  different  ambitions,  are  daily  placed  in  situa- 
tions where  the  interests  and  policies  of  one  conflict 
with  the  instincts  and  policies  of  the  other?  In  such 
cases  right  cannot  prevail  over  wrong  if  right  has  not 
sufficient  power  to  enforce  its  doctrines. 

But  we  of  the  Affirmative  are  anxious  to  give  the 
gentlemen  from  Missouri  the  benefit  of  every  doubt  to- 
night. So  for  the  sake  of  argument  we  will  now  indulge 
in  the  violent  assumption  that  the  time  has  been  reached 
when  wrong  has  absolutely  vanished  from  the  world; 
that  men  will  now  support  the  right  even  when  it  is  to 
their  interest  to  uphold  the  wrong.  But  even  if  this 
assumption  were  true,  we  would  still  have  the  need  of 
an  adequate  armament.  Why?  Simply  because  we 
find  that  time  after  time  nations  differ  in  their  con- 
ceptions of  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong.  Probably 
they  honestly  differ,  probably  they  sincerely  differ,  but 
the  point  is  they  do  differ,  just  as  in  1860  the  North  and 
South  differed  so  unalterably  that  our  lamentable  Civil 
War  was  the  result.  When  such  disputes  as  these  arise 
between  nations  we  have  an  international  controversy. 
Do  you  believe  that  this  country  will  never  again  become 
involved  in  such  controversies?  Do  you  believe  that  our 
dispute  with  Germany,  which  each  time  it  appears  to  be 
settled  suddenly  arises,  having  assumed  greater  propor- 
tions, do  you  believe  that  our  controversy  with  Great 
Britain  or  our  difficulty  with  Austria — do  you  believe  that 
all  these  will  disappear  even  as  I  am  speaking  to  you  and 
that  this  country  will  never  again  become  involved  in  such 
controversies?  Now  notice,  I  do  not  claim  that  these 


APPENDICES  273 

controversies  will  necessarily  lead  to  trouble.  My  point 
is  simply  this — that  since  we  have  always  had  such  dis- 
putes, that  since  we  now  have  them,  it  is  only  reason- 
able to  believe  that  we  shall  have  them  in  the  future. 
Now,  if  we  are  to  experience  such  controversies  in  the 
future,  it  is  evident  that  in  some  way  or  other  they 
must  be  settled.  How  will  they  be  settled?  That  is 
the  question.  In  some  of  them  arbitration  may  solve 
the  difficulty,  but  in  some  of  them  arbitration  will  fail, 
and  when  it  and  all  else  has  failed  to  produce  a  settle- 
ment, force  will  be  the  final  arbiter.  Do  you  believe 
that  arbitration  could  have  solved  the  controversy  be- 
tween the  North  and  South  in  1860?  Do  you  believe 
that  arbitration  could  have  settled  the  dispute  now 
being  fought  out  on  the  battle-fields  of  Europe?  If 
not,  if  in  the  one  instance  arbitration  failed  to  solve 
a  controversy  in  this,  the  enlightened  twentieth  century, 
if  in  the  second  instance  it  failed  to  settle  a  dispute  be- 
tween brother  and  brother,  what  assurance  have  we 
that  it  will  settle  all  controversies  in  the  future  ?  Why, 
even  The  Hague  conferences  themselves  have  always 
admitted  that  arbitration  cannot  be  relied  upon  in  ques- 
tions involving  the  national  honor,  the  national  exist- 
ence, or  even  the  vital  interests  of  a  country.  And  his- 
tory is  the  best  authority  we  have  on  this  point,  for  we 
find  that  in  the  past  force  has  been  used  to  settle  in- 
numerable international  controversies,  either  by  being 
applied  indirectly,  by  a  mere  display  of  force,  or  by  be- 
ing applied  directly,  by  actually  using  force. 

As  an  example  of  the  indirect  application  of  force,  I 
refer  you  to  the  conduct  of  the  French  in  1863.  Realiz- 
ing that  the  United  States  was  at  that  time  involved  in 
a  great  Civil  War  and  unable  to  pay  attention  to  the 
actions  of  other  nations,  Napoleon  III.  sent  troops  into 
Mexico  in  direct  violation  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 


274  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

But  at  the  end  of  that  war  we  had,  according  to  military 
experts,  the  most  formidable  army  of  our  whole  history. 
What  did  we  do?  Go  into  Mexico  and  literally  whip  the 
French  from  that  country?  No,  that  was  not  necessary. 
We  merely  intimated  to  Napoleon  that  probably  the 
Mexican  climate  would  not  prove  beneficial  to  the  health 
of  his  soldiers,  and  the  French  got  out  of  Mexico,  because 
they  realized  that  if  they  didn't  get  out  we  could 
put  them  out.  Just  one  instance  where  a  mere  display 
of  force  settled  an  international  controversy  without  a 
single  shot  being  fired. 

Again,  in  the  Russo-Japanese  War  Russia  placed  an 
embargo  on  cotton  which  hurt  the  commerce  of  the 
English  colonies.  England  demanded  that  it  be  re- 
moved, and  at  first  Russia  refused.  Both  believed 
they  were  right,  but  England  had  back  of  her  conten- 
tions the  most  powerful  navy  in  the  world,  and  Russia 
was  finally  forced  to  stifle  her  own  belief  and  submit  to 
the  convictions  of  Great  Britain.  Then  in  1915  Eng- 
land found  it  to  her  advantage  to  place  an  embargo  on 
cotton.  This  hurt  the  commerce  of  our  Southern  States, 
and  Uncle  Sam  wished  it  removed.  He  believed  he  was 
right,  but  England,  in  the  mean  time,  had  changed  her 
ideas  of  whether  or  not  cotton  embargoes  were  justifi- 
able. She  refused  to  remove  the  embargo,  and  she  was 
able  to  do  so  because  she  still  had  the  most  powerful 
navy  in  the  world.  In  these  two  instances,  by  a  mere 
display  of  force,  without  firing  a  single  shot,  England 
was  at  one  time  able  to  lift  an  embargo,  while  at  the 
other  she  was  able  to  place  one.  Now  it  is  unnecessary 
that  I  show  that  force  is  sometimes  used  directly  to  settle 
international  disputes,  for  each  of  the  innumerable  wars 
of  history  is  striking  proof  of  this  fact. 

We  have  had  such  controversies  in  the  past,  and  in 
them  force  has  been  the  final  arbiter.  Bear  with  me  a 


APPENDICES  275 

few  moments  while  I  prove  to  you  that,  although  we  have 
been  finally  successful  in  all  our  past  wars,  this  suc- 
cess has  been  attended  with  a  tremendous  amount  of 
unnecessary  cost.  In  the  War  of  1812  we  sent  527,000 
men  against  55,000  trained  British  soldiers,  and  it  took 
us  three  years  to  whip  them.  It  took  two  years  for 
104,000  Americans  to  whip  46,000  Mexicans,  and  in  the 
Spanish  War  we  sent  300,000  men  against  200,000 
Spaniards.  Now  I  cannot  expect  you  to  remember  all 
these  figures,  but  I  do  ask  you  to  remember  this,  that 
because  in  the  past  we  have  been  unprepared,  because 
we  have  not  had  adequate  force,  it  has  taken  three 
men  to  whip  every  enemy  sent  against  us  and  it  has 
taken  us  fourteen  years  to  do  it.  Now  figure  the  amount 
of  money  spent  in  those  wars,  over  $6,000,000,000; 
figure  the  amount  already  spent  in  pensions,  over 
$4,000,000,000,  which  does  not  include  the  amount  that 
is  yet  to  be  spent,  figure  the  amount  that  was  spent 
unnecessarily;  figure  the  extra  number  of  men  needed, 
the  extra  number  killed,  and  the  years  of  unnecessary 
war,  all  as  a  result  of  being  unprepared,  of  sending  raw 
recruits  into  battle  instead  of  trained,  experienced  sol- 
diers. Figure  all  this  and  you  will  find  that  because  of 
our  unpreparedness  in  the  past  we  have  suffered  eight 
years  of  unnecessary  war  and  lost  $7,000,000,000  in 
money  unnecessarily,  not  to  mention  the  number  of 
lives  uselessly  sacrificed.  What  an  indictment  against 
the  policy  that  the  gentlemen  of  the  Negative  must  up- 
hold this  evening!  But  there  is  another  thing  to  con- 
sider in  this  connection.  We  have  in  the  past  been 
finally  successful  in  all  our  wars,  because  we  could  take 
the  farmer  from  the  furrow,  the  business  man  from  the 
office,  make  soldiers  of  them,  and  greatly  outnumber  our 
enemies.  Why  were  we  able  to  do  this?  Because  the 
farmer  and  the  business  man  knew  how  to  handle  a 


276  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

musket,  and  muskets  were  then  the  implements  of  war- 
fare. But  now  fighting  is  a  scientific  business.  The 
farmer  and  the  business  man  cannot  handle  machine- 
guns  and  heavy  artillery.  They  cannot  make  calcula- 
tions for  shots  when  the  intended  target  is  far  beyond 
their  limited  vision.  The  crown  of  victory  now  rests 
with  the  trained,  experienced  army.  If  the  gentlemen 
of  the  Negative  do  not  believe  this,  ask  them  to  explain 
to  you  how  a  possible  strength  of  14,000,000  Germans 
and  Austrians  is  holding  at  bay  the  combined  possible 
strength  of  over  40,000,000  Allies,  backed  by  the  re- 
sources of  half  the  world.  No,  to-day  there  is  no  place 
for  the  untrained,  inefficient  army,  and  the  war  in  Europe 
bears  mute  testimony  to  that  fact. 

Yes,  we  have  had  controversies  in  the  past,  and  we 
have  still  greater  reason  to  fear  them  in  the  future. 
Why?  Because  the  United  States  has  become  a  great 
world  power.  We  have  the  responsibility  of  upholding 
the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  Major-General  Wood  says, 
in  a  personal  letter  to  my  colleague  and  myself,  that  we 
have  not  sufficient  force  to  insure  its  protection.  We 
must  protect  Hawaii,  the  Philippines,  Guam,  Porto 
Rico,  Alaska,  Cuba,  and  the  Panama  Canal  Zone. 
Military  authorities  tell  us  that  these  places  are  not 
securely  fortified,  while  General  Crozier  especially  tells 
us  that  the  fortifications  at  Panama  are  woefully  inade- 
quate for  the  protection  of  the  Zone.  But  that  is  not 
the  most  important  thing.  In  the  past  years  we  have 
become  the  principal  interpreters  and  enforcers  of  inter- 
national law.  It  is  America  who  guarantees  the  free- 
dom of  the  seas.  It  is  America  who  in  the  future  must 
take  a  firm  stand  against  any  nation  that  violates  inter- 
national law.  With  international  anarchy,  now  crop- 
ping out  on  every  corner,  who  would  dare  prophesy  the 
trend  of  future  events? 


APPENDICES  277 

Before  leaving  the  floor,  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentle- 
men of  the  Negative  three  questions.  We  of  the 
Affirmative  believe  that  these  questions  strike  at  the 
very  foundation  of  this  debate.  We  believe  that  if  they 
are  answered  the  Negative  and  Affirmative  will  be 
enabled  to  reach  some  common  ground  and  fight  out 
this  proposition  on  fundamental  principles.  I  leave  the 
questions  here  on  this  table  and  sincerely  request  the 
gentlemen  from  Missouri  to  answer  them  in  their  next 
speech.  These  are  the  questions:  (i)  Do  you  believe 
that  our  country  will  in  the  future  become  involved 
in  controversies  with  other  nations?  (2)  If  so,  do  you 
believe  that  in  the  settlement  of  these  controversies, 
after  all  else  has  failed,  force  will  be  the  final  arbiter? 
(3)  Do  you  favor  no  armament  at  all,  do  you  favor  an 
inadequate  armament,  or  do  you  favor  an  adequate 
armament? 

FIRST  NEGATIVE 
P.  C.  SPRINKLE,  MISSOURI 

The  first  speaker  considered  for  some  time  the  possi- 
bilities of  war.  The  Negative  is  not  concerned  with  such 
broad  visionary  possibilities,  but  first  with  the  ever- 
existing  present  and  our  ability  to  handle  any  difficulty 
which  may  arise.  The  Affirmative  then  went  on  to 
consider  our  present  fighting  equipment,  and  there  my 
argument  commences.  I  intend  to  show  that  with  our 
present  equipment  we  can  handle  any  international 
difficulty  that  may  arise. 

In  proving  that  we  can  cope  with  any  war  that  we 
are  likely  to  become  involved  in,  it  seems  best  to  consider 
our  fighting  strength  in  comparison  with  any  possible 
enemy.  The  first  possible  menace  and  also  the  one 
nearest  home  is  Mexico  on  the  south.  War  has  been 
waged  in  that  unfortunate  country  for  a  century  and 
19 


278  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

from  present  prospects  it  may  continue  for  a  longer 
period  in  the  future.  In  Mexico  dwell  many  American 
citizens  who  with  their  capital  exert  a  well-known 
influence  in  the  affairs  of  that  republic.  With  such  facts 
ever  present,  war  is  not  an  impossibility.  Any  war 
which  may  come  must  necessarily  be  one  between  land 
troops,  as  Mexico  has  no  navy  to  send  against  our  fleet. 
From  the  latest  army  report  and  the  speeches  in  Con- 
gress, we  know  our  army  has  an  authorized  strength  of 
over  107,000  men  and  officers.  But  the  enlisted  number 
falls  short  of  this  at  least  10,000.  However,  under  the 
statement  of  the  question  the  Negative  is  perfectly 
justified  in  discussing  this  question  from  the  number 
which  have  been  provided  for.  But  of  the  total  provided 
for  only  some  60,000  are  stationed  in  the  United  States, 
and  not  all  of  these  troops  are  mobile.  From  the  war 
report  we  see  that  over  30,000  are  a  mobile  force,  and 
to  increase  this  to  the  amount  provided  for  we  have  a 
strong  40,000  mobile  army  to  place  in  the  field  at  once. 
This  alone  should  overcome  the  poorly  equipped,  poorly 
trained,  half-hearted  soldiers  of  Mexico. 

But  we  have  only  begun.  Let  us  turn  to  the  next 
division  of  our  land  fighting  equipment.  The  latest 
army  report  states  the  number  of  men  and  officers  en- 
listed in  our  militia  to  be  127,410.  These  figures  are 
substantiated  by  a  recent  letter  of  Secretary  Baker. 
But  not  for  one  moment  would  the  Negative  contend 
this  entire  number  is  available.  The  Chief  of  Staff  in  his 
latest  report  states  that  only  80  per  cent,  of  this  total 
attends  annual  inspection,  and  that  only  66  per  cent. 
of  this  total  drills  the  required  number  of  drill  periods. 
So,  after  making  these  proper  deductions,  we  have  85,000 
available  men  to  call  upon  from  this  portion  of  our  mili- 
tary establishment.  Adding  to  this  our  previous  mobile 
army,  we  have  a  force  of  125,000  men.  In  the  face  of 


APPENDICES  279 

this,  no  one  can  contend  that  our  army  is  not  adequate 
to  handle  any  difficulty  to  the  south. 

Having  considered  our  mobile  forces,  it  is  next  proper 
to  go  deeper  into  the  question  and  consider  our  reserve 
equipment.  Since  1900  we  see  from  the  annual  war 
reports  that  over  300,000  men  have  been  honorably 
discharged  from  our  army.  Secretary  Baker  in  making 
a  similar  estimate  stated  that  only  2  per  cent,  of  this 
number  had  died,  and  General  Bliss  of  the  United  States 
Army  in  his  estimate  allowed  only  i  per  cent,  for 
deaths.  But,  wishing  to  be  entirely  fair  in  our  esti- 
mates, the  Negative  is  willing  to  divide  its  total  by  two 
and  in  that  way  allow  for  those  who  have  died  or  who 
from  disabilities  could  not  now  serve.  This  then  leaves 
150,000  trained  regulars  who  are  available  as  a  reserve 
fighting  basis. 

But  this  does  not  complete  our  reserve.  From  a 
book  published  in  1914  by  Capt.  Ira  L.  Reeves  of  the 
United  States  Army,  entitled,  Military  Education  in  the 
United  States,  we  see  that  in  the  school  year  1913-14 
there  were  enrolled  in  ninety-eight  of  the  best  military 
schools  of  this  country  over  32,000  students.  This  num- 
ber is  substantiated  by  Congressman  Hay  of  Virginia 
in  his  estimates  before  Congress.  So,  by  making  a 
similar  estimate,  as  we  did,  as  to  the  honorably  dis- 
charged regulars  from  our  army,  we  have  a  total  of  over 
500,000  men.  Again,  as  before,  dividing  this  total  by 
two  so  as  to  arrive  at  a  perfectly  fair  result,  we  have 
over  250,000  military  men  from  this  source  who  are 
available  as  a  reserve  equipment. 

As  a  final  consideration  let  us  look  at  our  total  land 
equipment.  From  our  standing  army  and  from  our 
militia  we  have  125,000  men  to  constitute  a  mobile  force. 
As  a  reserve,  we  have  150,000  trained  regulars  and  over 
250,000  men  trained  in  the  best  military  schools  of  this 


28o  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

country.  So,  for  a  grand  total  for  men  available  at 
this  minute  as  a  mobile  force  and  as  a  reserve,  we  have 
525,000  men.  To  entirely  allay  any  doubts  as  to  my 
estimates,  I  wish  to  state  that  Congressman  Hay  in  his 
estimate  concedes  there  are  over  1,300,000  available  mili- 
tary trained  men.  Secretary  Baker  estimates  there  are 
over  1,200,000  and  General  Bliss  places  the  total  close 
to  a  million  and  a  half. 

So,  in  the  face  of  my  conservative  estimate,  which 
indeed  constitutes  a  magnificent  fighting  equipment, 
will  the  Affirmative  have  the  heart  to  contend  that  we 
are  now  weak  and  unable  to  take  care  of  ourselves?  It 
would  be  an  utter  lack  of  judgment,  a  financial  expendi- 
ture based  upon  childish  fancies,  a  desire  to  acquire  a 
fighting  equipment  the  purpose  of  which  could  only  be 
to  win  a  place  in  the  sun,  to  materially  increase  this 
division  of  our  military  establishment. 

Having  rubbed  from  the  slate  of  war  possibilities 
with  this  warring  nation  across  the  Rio  Grande,  let  us 
turn  our  eyes  westward.  There  we  see  a  nation  which 
in  the  last  decade  has  stepped  from  the  second-class 
powers  to  the  front.  We  see  Japan  the  victor  over 
Russia  and  a  participant  in  the  present  great  struggle. 
So  for  the  moment  imagine  us  in  the  war  with  the  only 
first-class  power  of  the  East,  and  what  its  natural  result 
will  be.  Any  war  with  Japan  must  necessarily  be  a 
naval  war  due  to  the  geographical  position  of  Japan  and 
the  United  States.  There  are  two  possibilities:  Japan 
will  either  attempt  to  seize  the  Philippine  Islands,  which 
would  make  it  necessary  for  us  to  make  an  aggressive 
move,  or  Japan  will  attempt  an  aggressive  move  across 
the  Pacific. 

Should  Japan  attempt  a  move  on  the  Philippines, 
Manila,  the  objective  point,  must  be  taken  first.  But 
from  the  latest  report  made  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers 


APPENDICES  281 

of  the  War  Department,  we  see  that  this  country  has 
spent  five  times  as  much  money  fortifying  Manila  and 
Subig  bays  as  she  has  upon  any  of  the  twenty-eight 
fortifications  in  this  country.  The  Chief  of  Ordnance 
reports  for  the  same  year  that  these  fortifications  are 
mounted  with  1 4-inch  guns,  which  are  the  equal  of  those 
carried  by  the  strongest  and  largest  Japanese  battle- 
ship. The  true  significance  of  the  strength  of  these 
fortifications  is  illustrated  when  it  is  known  that  experts 
state  that  New  York  has  the  best  fortified  harbor  in  the 
world.  Government  secrecy  prevents  primary  facts,  but 
to  show  that  the  Manila  fortifications  are  complete  we 
see  that  the  estimates  for  the  years  1915-16  and  1916- 
17  for  necessary  funds  are  very  small  compared  with 
prior  appropriations.  Thus  we  see  that  the  necessary 
cost  of  maintenance  is  all  that  is  now  asked  for.  So, 
with  these  fortifications  to  hold  off  the  Japanese  navy 
until  our  navy  can  reach  that  point,  the  next  thing  is 
to  see  if  our  navy  is  strong  enough  to  continue  and  finish 
the  conflict. 

In  considering  the  relative  strength  of  these  two 
navies  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  ships  do  not 
operate  singly,  but  in  squadrons.  So  to  make  out  the 
strongest  case,  I  am  placing  all  the  Japanese  ships  of 
the  first  class  in  a  squadron,  and  so  on  down  the  list  of 
vessels.  Under  present  conditions  with  the  powers  in 
conflict  there  is  no  reason  why  we  could  not  send  our 
entire  navy  to  the  Philippines  to  aid  this  supposed  attack 
upon  Manila.  From  the  last  available  volume  of  the 
Senate  Documents,  we  see  that  the  United  States  has 
eleven  dreadnaughts  and  five  building.  Six  of  these  are 
armed  with  1 2-inch  guns  and  five  of  them  with  1 4-inch 
guns.  To  attack  this  squadron  of  eleven,  Japan  has 
three  dreadnaughts,  with  four  battle  cruisers  to  aid  them. 
The  battle  cruisers  are  faster  than  our  dreadnaughts, 


282  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

but  not  better  armed.  Speed  must  be  accompanied 
with  guns  to  make  a  superior  fighting-machine.  Thus 
we  see  that  Japan  has  five  vessels  with  1 4-inch  guns 
and  two  with  12 -inch  guns.  It  might  be  stated  these 
cruisers  make  a  squadron  by  themselves,  but  I  place 
the  dreadnaughts  with  them  so  as  to  make  the  strongest 
possible  case.  So  upon  the  most  favorable  estimate  for 
Japan,  we  have  her  outnumbered  by  four  dreadnaughts. 
Next,  we  have  twenty-four  predreadnaughts  to  throw 
against  Japan's  thirteen,  which  are  not  armed  with  guns 
equal  to  ours.  Sixteen  of  our  twenty-four  predread- 
naughts have  i2-inch  guns  and  eight  have  1 3-inch  guns. 
Two  of  the  Japanese  predreadnaughts  have  lo-inch 
guns  and  eleven  have  1 2 -inch  guns.  As  to  this  squadron, 
we  have  a  margin  of  eleven  ships  all  equally  or  better 
armed.  We  have  forty-five  cruisers  to  send  against 
twenty-seven  of  Japan.  We  have  sixty-four  torpedo- 
boat  destroyers,  with  nine  building,  against  fifty-four  of 
Japan.  We  have  sixty-six  submarines,  with  thirty  build- 
ing, against  thirteen  of  Japan.  So,  with  a  margin  of  four 
dreadnaughts,  eleven  predreadnaughts,  eighteen  cruisers, 
ten  torpedo-boat  destroyers,  and  fifty-three  submarines, 
I  ask  the  Affirmative  if  this  is  not  a  safe  margin?  This 
margin  alone  constitutes  a  fleet  which  could  overcome 
the  entire  naval  fighting  equipment  of  Russia,  Italy,  or 
Austria.  In  the  face  of  these  figures,  can  the  Affirmative 
reasonably  ask  or  consistently  contend  that  we  need 
a  material  increase? 

But  for  the  moment  let  us  consider  the  possibility  of 
Japan  making  an  aggressive  move  directly  upon  the 
United  States.  Six  thousand  miles  of  water  separate 
us  from  Japan.  No  squadron  of  ships  can  operate  this 
enormous  distance,  so  a  base  closer  to  our  shores  is 
necessary.  Japan  has  no  naval  bases  in  the  Pacific,  so 
one  must  be  taken,  and  it  must  be  one  with  the  neces- 


APPENDICES  283 

sary  supplies  for  that  purpose.  Where  is  this?  The 
Hawaiian  Islands.  But  from  the  last  report  by  the  Chief 
Engineer,  we  see  that  our  Government  has  spent  twice 
as  much  there  for  fortifications  as  it  has  upon  any  for- 
tification in  this  country.  In  an  estimate  similar  to  that 
for  the  Manila  fortifications,  we  find  that  but  a  small 
amount  compared  with  prior  appropriations  was  asked 
for.  Thus  again  we  are  led  to  conclude  that  these  islands 
are  equipped  with  complete  fortifications,  and  that 
maintenance  is  now  all  that  is  required.  So  here  Japan 
must  halt  to  attack,  giving  our  fleet  time  to  go  to  the 
rescue.  Then  with  a  fleet  with  a  margin  sufficient  to 
cope  with  any  of  the  three  first-class  powers  mentioned, 
we  could  easily  repel  this  imaginary  move.  Again,  the 
Negative  submits  the  question,  Shall  we  have  a  ma- 
terial increase?  To  do  so  certainly  can  serve  no  useful 
purpose  unless  we  intend  to  change  our  policy  of  safe 
margin  to  that  of  foolhardy  expenditure  which  can  only 
benefit  the  naval  industries  of  this  country. 

Having  eliminated  Mexico  as  a  war  possibility  and 
having  seen  that  a  war  with  Japan  must  necessarily  mean 
quick  and  bitter  defeat  for  this  Eastern  nation,  let  us 
turn  our  attention  to  Europe.  For  some  time  past  we 
have  had  strained  diplomatic  relations  with  Germany. 
Each  crisis  has  been  wisely  met  by  our  President,  but 
should  necessity  arise  for  a  conflict  with  Germany,  are 
we  now  prepared?  Due  to  the  death-grip  contest  now 
being  waged  in  Europe,  it  would  be  foolish  to  consider 
Germany  making  an  aggressive  move  on  this  country. 
Any  difficulty  leading  us  to  war  must  result  in  our  be- 
coming allied  with  the  opponents  of  Germany.  That 
then  leaves  us  to  consider  this  one  proposition,  and  that 
is,  Can  we  prepare  for  that  struggle? 

As  a  present  equipment  the  Chief  of  Ordnance  reports 
we  now  have  on  hand  equipment  to  place  in  the  field  a 


284  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

reserve  army  of  from  400,000  to  500,000  men.  There 
are  over  1,000,000  rifles  on  hand,  and  over  200,000,000 
rounds  of  small-arms  ammunition.  There  are  also  built 
or  being  built  over  2,000  machine  and  field  guns. 

After  considering  what  we  now  have  on  hand,  the 
next  question  is,  Are  our  industries  now  efficient  for 
supplying  us  in  case  of  war  with  Germany?  A  recent 
issue  of  The  Independent  estimates  that  we  have  so  far 
furnished  from  a  billion  to  a  billion  and  a  half  dollars' 
worth  of  war  material  to  Europe.  Recent  orders  for 
ammunition  alone  amount  to  $250,000,000.  The  Ameri- 
can Magazine  in  an  article  for  this  year  states  that  the 
Curtis  plant  alone  can  turn  out  seven  war  aeroplanes  a 
day.  These  statements  go  to  show  the  wonderful  in- 
dustrial resources  in  this  country.  The  Affirmative  can 
never  successfully  argue  that  we  are  unprepared  in- 
dustrially. 

To  briefly  sum  up :  I  have  established,  first,  that  with 
Mexico  as  the  most  probable  source  of  war  near  at 
home,  we  now  have  in  this  country  125,000  mobile  troops 
which  can  be  directed  upon  that  already  war-ridden  and 
war-weakened  republic.  Next,  we  turned  to  the  far 
East  and  fought  an  imaginary  war  with  Japan.  Once 
more  we  were  victorious,  due  to  the  safe  margin  of  our 
naval  equipment.  Finally,  we  faced  about  to  the  great- 
est struggle  of  history  and  considered  our  most  formid- 
able possible  enemy.  Here,  in  addition  to  our  provided- 
for  equipment,  was  only  to  be  considered  the  question 
of  preparation  should  war  be  declared;  and  we  find 
industries  equaled  by  no  other  country.  We  have  in- 
dustries capable  of  supplying  three  of  the  warring  nations 
to-day,  and  with  a  capacity  of  even  greater  production. 
So  permit  me  to  leave  this  thought  with  you.  If  at  the 
present  time  our  fighting  equipment  is  sufficient  to  meet 
any  possible  present  danger,  is  it  wise,  is  it  justifiable, 


APPENDICES  285 

is  it  good  business  to  make  a  material  increase?  I  have 
considered  this  question  from  the  present  only.  My 
colleague  will  complete  the  argument  by  meeting  any 
possible  war  in  the  future. 

SECOND  AFFIRMATIVE 
JEROME  K.  GROSSMAN,  TEXAS 

Before  my  colleague  left  the  floor  he  asked  the  op- 
position three  questions.  These  questions  remain  un- 
answered from  any  Affirmative  action  by  the  gentleman 
from  Missouri,  so  I  will  answer  them  as  they  undoubtedly 
would,  judging  from  their  first  speaker's  remarks.  I 
trust  that  I  will  do  the  gentleman  no  injustice. 

The  first  question  asked  was,  Do  you  believe  that  the 
United  States  will  ever  again  be  involved  in  an  inter- 
national controversy?  The  second  question  was,  Do 
you  believe,  when  all  other  methods  have  failed  to  pro- 
duce a  settlement  of  such  controversies,  that  force  will 
be  the  final  arbiter?  The  Negative  has  answered  both 
of  these  questions  affirmatively  by  attempting  to  prove 
our  present  force  adequate.  If  international  contro- 
versies were  not  probable,  if  force  was  not  in  some  in- 
stances to  be  the  final  arbiter,  there  would  be  no  need 
for  any  force,  much  less  a  discussion  as  to  the  adequacy 
of  our  present  equipment  on  land  and  sea.  The  third 
question  asked  was,  Do  you  favor  no  armament  at  all, 
an  inadequate  armament,  or  an  adequate  armament? 
And  the  gentleman  answered  by  taking  up  his  whole 
speech  in  an  endeavor  to  prove  our  present  potential 
force  adequate;  thus  we  see  that  the  Affirmative  and 
Negative  agree  on  this  proposition.  We  both  want  an 
adequate  armament.  There  is  then  but  one  issue  before 
us  from  now  on  in  this  discussion  to-night,  Is  the  arma- 
rnent  obtained  or  provided  for  on  August  i,  1915,  ade.- 


286  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

quate?  Whatever  be  the  cost,  whatever  the  effects,  we 
both  agree  that  our  need  is  an  adequate  force.  We  thus 
impress  this  proposition  in  order  that  the  Negative  may 
hold  fast  to  this  issue,  which  they  have  conceded  by  their 
first  speakers  remarks  to  be  the  one  controlling  factor. 
Not,Will  an  increase  lead  to  militarism  ?  Not,  Is  war  prob- 
able? Not,  What  will  be  the  cost  or  how  will  the  money 
be  raised?  Not  these  nor  aught  else  but  adequacy! 

The  Affirmative  does  not  desire  to  place  our  armament 
upon  a  war  basis.  We  want  it  only  upon  a  peace  basis, 
but  upon  such  a  one  as  is  consonant  with  our  duties 
and  responsibilities;  upon  such  a  peace  basis  that  with 
the  least  amount  of  time  and  expense  it  can  be  placed 
upon  a  war  basis  should  the  necessity  arise.  In  con- 
sidering this  question  of  adequacy  we  urge  that  you  keep 
in  mind  this  fundamental  proposition,  that  an  army 
and  navy  cannot  be  built  in  a  day;  that  the  building 
of  an  efficient  fighting  strength,  under  modern  con- 
ditions, is  the  work  of  years. 

I  submit  the  proposition,  first,  that  a  material  increase 
is  imperative  to-day  to  place  our  armament  upon  a  peace 
basis.  Second,  it  is  axiomatic,  if  our  army  and  navy  are 
not  even  upon  a  strictly  peace  basis  they  are  not  upon 
such  a  basis  as  is  consonant  with  our  duties  and  responsi- 
bilities; these  cannot  be  placed  upon  a  fighting  standard 
should  the  necessity  arise.  Let  me  here  pause  for  a  mo- 
ment and  ask,  What  do  we  mean  by  a  peace  basis?  For 
our  navy,  for  example,  we  must  have  in  time  of  peace 
a  sufficient  number  of  ships  for  patrolling  duties;  we 
must  have  sufficient  auxiliaries.  Admiral  Fletcher  and 
Admiral  Blue  have  stated  that  our  present 'number  of 
ships  must  be  manned  to  about  15,000  men  short  of  a 
war  basis.  For  our  army  we  need  troops  to  garrison 
our  foreign  possessions;  to  patrol  our  Mexican  border; 
to  aid  State  authorities,  if  necessary,  and  for  many 


APPENDICES  287 

other  peace  purposes.  Our  coast  defenses  should  be 
manned  to  at  least  one-half  their  war  strength.  This 
briefly  explains  what  I  mean  when  I  say  a  peace  basis. 

Had  you  ever  stopped  to  contemplate  the  enormous 
extent  of  coast  that  our  navy  must  patrol,  from  the 
Canal  to  Alaska,  from  the  Canal  to  the  northern  coast 
of  Maine?  Over  21,000  miles  of  seacoast  must  that 
navy  defend  and  patrol.  Yet  that  navy  to-day,  with  its 
present  number  of  ships,  is  not  even  upon  a  peace  basis. 
Admiral  Badger  and  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
Roosevelt  testified  before  the  House  Naval  Committee 
that  an  increase  of  18,000  men  is  needed  in  the  navy. 
For  war?  No!  for  peace  purposes,  to  efficiently  man 
the  ships  already  built.  Admirals  Blue  and  Fletcher 
before  the  same  committee  testified  likewise.  That  is  a 
material  increase,  an  increase  needed  to  man  our  present 
number  of  ships.  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative,  you 
have  stated  that  you  favor  our  present  number  of  ships. 
A  ship  unmanned  is  useless;  a  ship  insufficiently  manned 
is  to  that  extent  useless.  Assuredly,  friends  of  the  Nega- 
tive, you  would  have  the  ships  already  constructed,  and 
which  you  have  so  eloquently  pleaded  for  and  defended, 
properly  manned.  To  be  consistent,  therefore,  you  must 
favor  this  material  increase  of  18,000  men  in  the  per- 
sonnel of  the  navy. 

Next  we  come  to  our  coast  fortifications.  We  have 
to-day  in  the  United  States  thirty-nine  forts  totally  un- 
manned, yet  the  opposition  calls  this  adequacy.  It  was 
the  weakness  of  Chesapeake  Bay  that  in  1814  caused 
our  national  Capitol  to  be  burned  to  the  ground,  and 
that  weakness  still  exists.  At  Boston,  New  York,  Phil- 
adelphia, Baltimore,  Norfolk,  Savannah,  and  Jackson- 
ville, 75  per  cent,  of  the  men  have  been  taken  from  the 
coast  defenses  for  service  in  our  territorial  possessions 
and  elsewhere.  We  must  rob  one  nest  to  build  another, 


288  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

and  both  are  needed  for  adequate  self-defense.  We 
have  to-day  only  170  companies  of  coast  artillery.  This 
is  93  companies  short  of  enough  to  man  one-half  our 
guns.  There  are  needed  to-day,  says  our  Secretary  of 
War,  between  5,000  and  10,000  men  to  man  the  forti- 
fications already  built.  To  place  them  upon  a  war 
basis?  No,  to  place  those  that  we  have  upon  a  strictly 
peace  basis.  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative,  you  have 
stated  that  you  favor  our  present  forts.  I  submit  to 
you  that  to  be  consistent  you  must  agree  that  they  be 
manned,  and  thus  must  agree  to  a  material  increase, 
which  is  absolutely  necessary  if  they  are  to  be  manned. 
Let  us  now  consider  our  second  line  of  defense,  the 
army.  What  is  the  duty  of  that  army?  It  is  needed 
in  Porto  Rico,  in  Hawaii,  in  the  Philippines,  and  in 
regions  bordering  the  Indian  tribes.  We  need  it  for 
policing  purposes  in  continental  United  States;  to  aid 
the  State  authorities,  if  necessary.  And  to-day  we  have 
an  army  of  100,000  men.  We  have  a  mobile  army  of 
30,000  men.  Think  of  it.  We  cannot  to-day  mobilize 
a  number  equal  to  one  European  army  corps;  and  they 
have  thousands  of  such  corps  in  Europe.  Yet  the  Nega- 
tive calls  this  an  adequate  force.  President  Wilson 
stated  on  his  Western  tour  that  the  United  States  did 
not  have  sufficient  number  of  troops  to  patrol  the  Mexi- 
can border,  and  subsequent  events  have  amply  verified 
his  statement.  I  have  here  a  letter  from  Major-General 
Wood  stating  that  our  present  force  is  inadequate  for 
even  policing  duties.  Thirty  thousand  mobile  troops  in 
all  continental  United  States  for  the  protection  of 
100,000,000  of  people.  Yet  the  Negative  tells  you  that 
we  have  sufficient  troops  for  all  purposes.  Why,  friends, 
think  of  the  invasion  of  Columbus,  New  Mexico,  only 
a  few  days  ago,  by  that  bandit  Villa.  Let  the  gentlemen 
explain  that  occurrence  and  let  them  further  explain  if 


APPENDICES  289 

we  have  this  great  reserve  and  great  number  of  trained 
men  from  military  schools  and  W.  O.  W.  camps,  of  which 
the  first  gentleman  spoke  in  such  glowing  terms,  why 
Congress  was  forced  to  pass  a  law  providing  for  an  in- 
crease of  20,000  men.  Gentlemen  of  the  Negative,  you 
must  prove  this  action  taken  by  our  national  Congress 
unjustifiable,  for  a  material  increase  in  the  army  has 
already  been  provided  for,  over  that  obtained  or  pro- 
vided for  on  August  i,  1915,  by  this  action  of  Congress. 
I  submit  that  our  present  armament  is  not  upon  even  a 
peace  basis;  over  18,000  men  needed  in  the  navy  for  the 
present  number  of  ships,  over  75  per  cent,  of  the  men 
from  our  coast  defenses  removed  to  other  points  be- 
cause there  was  no  other  place  from  which  to  get  them, 
a  pitiful  mobile  army  of  30,000,  not  even  enough  for 
patrolling  the  Mexican  border.  Yet  the  Negative  has 
attempted  to  prove  such  a  force  an  adequate  one  for 
our  protection.  The  Affirmative  might  well  rest  its 
case  here.  We  have  proved  a  material  increase  jus- 
tifiable for  peace  purposes  alone.  But  in  order  to  show 
the  absurdity  of  the  Negative's  position,  we  will  go 
further  and  consider  our  armament  in  comparison  with 
that  of  other  nations.  We  submit,  therefore,  in  the 
second  place,  that  it  is  axiomatic,  if  our  present  arma- 
ment is  not  even  upon  a  peace  basis,  it  is  not  upon  such 
a  basis  that  it  can  be  placed  upon  a  war  basis  should  the 
necessity  arise. 

Admiral  Fisk  has  stated:  "The  naval  policy  of  the 
United  States  must  be  admitted  to  have  lagged  behind 
that  of  almost  every  nation.  It  will  take  five  years  for 
the  United  States  to  be  placed  upon  a  footing  that  she 
could  meet  an  efficient  enemy."  What  is  the  strength 
of  our  navy  compared  to  that  of  other  first-class  powers  ? 
England  has  built  and  is  building  46  capital  ships; 
Germany,  28;  and  the  United  States,  15.  Captain 


29o  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

McKean  of  the  Naval  Corps  last  month  before  the 
House  Naval  Committee  stated  that,  according  to  in- 
formation in  the  hands  of  the  Navy  Department,  our 
navy  is  to-day  one-half  that  of  the  Teutons  and  only 
one-fourth  that  of  Great  Britain.  We  have  to-day  but 
three  scouting  cruisers.  "Our  navy,"  says  Admiral 
Fletcher,  "is  blind."  The  Negative  speaker  who  pre- 
ceded me  stated  that  we  have  66  submarines  and  30  in 
process  of  being  built.  He  did  not  tell  you  that  we  have 
but  1 2  submarines  on  the  whole  Atlantic  coast,  and  that 
in  the  recent  manceuvers,  according  to  Captain  Stirling, 
only  one  of  these  was  able  to  dive.  No,  the  gentleman 
did  not  tell  you  that  we  have  but  one  submarine  to  pro- 
tect 3,000  miles  of  coast-line.  The  gentleman  from 
Missouri  again  failed  to  tell  you  that  we  have  not  a 
single  battle  cruiser;  that  our  navy  to-day  ranks  fourth 
and  is  rapidly  deteriorating  to  a  point  where  it  will 
soon  rank  sixth,  if  the  present  programs  are  continued. 
The  speaker  of  the  Negative  gave  you  a  long  com- 
parison of  our  armament  with  that  of  Japan  and  there 
he  stopped.  The  gentleman  did  not  compare  our  navy 
with  that  of  Germany,  of  England,  of  France.  He  did 
not  tell  you,  moreover,  that  we  have  but  7,000  troops 
to  defend  the  Philippine  Islands.  He  did  not  tell  you 
that  it  has  been  recommended  by  the  Chief  of  Staff 
that  the  garrisons  at  Hawaii  and  on  the  Philippine 
Islands  be  doubled.  And  the  gentleman  says  of  Ger- 
many, "She  is  engaged  in  a  great  war  and  cannot  trouble 
us."  What  a  defense!  And  what  of  the  future?  An 
army  and  navy  cannot  be  built  in  a  day.  But  the  gen- 
tleman presumably  met  this  point  when  he  spoke  of  our 
great  resources,  of  how  much  ammunition  we  are  send- 
ing the  Allies,  of  how  much  food  they  are  receiving  from 
us.  But  the  gentleman  failed  to  state  how  many  trained 
men  we  could  send,  how  many  efficient  battle-ships  we 


APPENDICES  291 

could  supply  them  with.  The  gentleman  failed  to  dis- 
tinguish between  military  resources  and  military  strength. 
What  matters  how  much  ammunition  we  have  if  we 
have  but  704  field-guns  and  need  over  2,000?  What 
matters  how  much  foodstuffs  w«  send  across  the  ocean, 
if  we  cannot  compete  with  a  nation  upon  the  sea  in  real 
fighting  equipment?  Soon  would  our  enemy  sink  our 
few  ships  and  come  to  take  the  foodstuffs  for  himself. 
I  submit  to  you,  is  such  a  force  on  sea  as  we  maintain 
an  adequate  one?  A  navy  one-half  that  of  the  Teutons, 
one-fourth  that  of  England,  to  be  passed  in  1920  by  even 
Austria  and  Italy,  if  our  present  respective  programs 
continue?  Such  a  navy  can  never  maintain  our  position 
in  the  world  as  a  world  power,  which  we  have  been  since 
the  Spanish- American  War;  such  a  navy  can  never 
uphold  the  Monroe  Doctrine;  defend  the  neutrality  of 
the  Canal;  protect  the  integrity  of  China;  shield  and 
defend  our  own  country,  our  own  homes  and  firesides. 

Let  us  turn  again  to  our  coast  fortifications.  On 
August  i,  1915,  there  was  not  a  1 4-inch  gun  on  our 
whole  coast-line.  Yet  the  foreign  battle-ships  carry 
1 6-inch  guns.  In  a  word,  these  ships  could  stand  out 
ten  miles,  almost  two  miles  beyond  the  range  of  our 
coast-defense  guns,  and  pound  our  coast  fortifications  to 
pieces.  Still  the  Negative  speaker  who  preceded  me 
stated  that  with  such  guns  we  can  defend  ourselves.  Is 
such  a  statement  consonant  with  reason?  Generals 
Scott,  Weaver,  Crozier,  Goethals,  and  Edwards  ap- 
peared before  the  House  Committee  and  pleaded  for 
more  adequate  coast  defenses  at  Panama.  Will  we  for- 
ever sleep  with  these  vital  facts  staring  us  in  the  face 
urging  us  to  action? 

The  gentleman  from  Missouri  has  told  you  of  our 
magnificent  army.  It  is  magnificent  for  its  size.  Man 
for  man,  the  American  soldier  is  the  best  in  the  world, 


292  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

but  30,000  of  these  men  as  a  mobile  force  is  not  enough 
of  those  good  men.  We  do  not  want  a  large  standing 
army.  Such  would  not  be  consonant  with  the  ideals 
of  the  American  people,  and  they  would  never  submit 
to  such.  But  we  need  a  material  increase  over  that 
existing  to-day.  The  gentleman  from  Missouri  told  you 
that  we  could  cope  with  Mexico  to-day.  Remember 
that  he  did  not  explain  the  Columbus  incident,  nor 
President  Wilson's  statement  that  he  did  not  have 
enough  troops  to  properly  patrol  the  border;  but  let 
us  waive  this  for  the  moment.  We  have  to-day  in  all 
continental  United  States  but  4,000  mobile  troops,  aside 
from  those  in  Mexico  and  on  the  border.  I  ask  you  in 
all  fairness  to  consider  this  proposition:  Suppose  that, 
instead  of  having  to  chase  that  lone  bandit  and  his  few 
followers,  we  were  to  be  confronted  with  a  first-class  army 
of  say  250,000  men.  Look  five  years  into  the  future. 
See  the  Mexican  problem  still  with  us,  and  therefore 
4,000  mobile  troops  or  less  to  meet  another  probable 
foe,  or  draw  the  picture  even  with  a  vision  of  our  total 
30,000  mobile  troops  available.  Why,  friends,  even  the 
Mexican  field-guns  are  larger  than  those  of  the  United 
States,  according  to  Senator  Smoot.  It  took  us  almost 
a  week  to  mobilize  a  few  thousand  men  to  chase  that 
bandit.  How  long,  I  ask,  would  it  take  us  to  mobilize 
that  which  we  have  not,  a  trained  army  to  meet  an 
efficient  army  of  a  first-class  power? 

I  ask  that  you  remember  that  my  colleague  proved 
to  you:  (i)  that  although  we  have  been  finally  success- 
ful in  our  past  wars,  the  success  was  attained  only  at  a 
needless  and  tremendous  loss  of  lives  and  money;  (2) 
that  the  obligations  and  policies  of  America  call  for  a 
material  increase  in  our  army  and  navy.  He  further 
proved  to  you  (3)  that  we  will  have  international  con- 
troversies in  the  future,  as  we  have  had  in  the  past,  and 


APPENDICES  293 

(4)  that  in  some  of  these  controversies,  when  all  else 
has  failed  to  produce  a  settlement,  force  will  be  the 
final  arbiter.  Remember,  finally,  that  there  is  but  one 
issue  in  this  debate  from  now  on — the  issue  of  adequacy. 
With  regard  to  adequacy,  the  Affirmative  has  proved 
(i)  that  our  present  armament  is  not  even  upon  a  peace 
basis,  and  (2)  that  it  is  woefully  inadequate  when  con- 
sidered from  the  standpoint  of  a  war  basis. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Negative,  we  ask  that  the  second 
speaker  meet  us  on  the  issue  of  adequacy  of  our  present 
army  and  navy. 

SECOND  NEGATIVE 

A.   F.   McCLANAHAN,    MISSOURI 

The  Negative  maintains  that  the  United  States  is 
able  with  her  present  armament  to  enter  into  immediate 
war  with  Germany,  Mexico,  or  Japan.  Upon  this  there 
is  a  direct  clash  with  the  gentlemen  of  the  Affirmative, 
but  before  we  enter  into  that  clash  we  wish  to  complete 
the  case  of  the  Negative  by  showing  that  there  is  no 
immediate  danger  of  war  with  England,  and  that  future 
contingencies  do  not  call  for  an  increase  in  our  army 
and  navy. 

In  the  first  place,  our  contention  is  that  there  is  no 
immediate  danger  of  war  with  England.  We  have  a 
treaty  with  England  which  provides  that  neither  coun- 
try will  go  to  war  with  the  other  short  of  one  year's 
notice.  This  period  of  one  year  will  give  the  nation 
taking  the  offensive  time  to  cool  off,  and  prevent  war 
from  any  passionate  flare-up  over  trivial  matters.  And 
only  through  passion  would  we  ever  go  to  war  with  her, 
for,  as  we  will  point  out  later,  there  are  no  social,  eco- 
nomic, political,  or  racial  causes  for  war.  England  has 
shown  herself  willing  to  arbitrate  all  justiciable  matters, 
and  only  through  some  sudden  fit  of  passion  over  a  fancied 
20 


294  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

insult  to  our  national  honor  would  we  ever  go  to  war 
with  her.  Under  such  conditions  our  treaty  obligates 
us  to  give  her  one  year  in  which  to  right  our  wrongs 
before  declaring  war.  The  result  will  be  that  in  that 
time  passion  will  have  subsided,  and  she  will  have 
amicably  righted  all  injuries  to  us.  And  that  the 
temper  of  the  American  people  is  not  easily  aroused 
against  England,  consider  how  passively  we  have  suffered 
her  infractions  of  international  law  during  the  present 
war. 

Having  settled  the  fact  that  we  are  not  going  to  war 
with  England  over  some  sudden  flare-up,  let  us  consider 
what  conditions  prevent  her  from  going  to  war  with  us. 
Even  if  she  could  not  afford  to  respect  the  one-year 
treaty — and  England  has  always  honored  her  treaties — 
during  the  present  crisis  she  could  not  afford  to  declare 
war  on  us.  At  this  time  she  is  dependent  on  us  for  a 
large  part  of  her  munitions  of  war.  The  Bethlehem  Steel 
Corporation  alone  is  turning  out  daily  and  furnishing  to 
the  Allies  more  munitions  than  all  the  British  munition- 
factories  combined.  Not  only  are  we  supplying  her  with 
munitions  of  war,  but  more  important  still  is  her  reliance 
on  us  for  food.  Thirty  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  food- 
supply  of  England  comes  from  these  United  States,  be- 
sides a  large  amount  from  our  next-door  neighbor, 
Canada.  No  one  knows  better  than  England  that  she 
cannot  afford  to  lose  this  supply  of  munitions  and  food, 
and  that  her  obtaining  them  depends  upon  her  friendly 
relations  with  the  United  States. 

Indeed,  England  cannot  afford  to  go  to  war  with  us 
at  the  present  time.  Should  England  declare  war  on 
the  United  States  her  chances  of  success  in  the  present 
war  would  be  greatly  lessened — her  munitions  would 
be  cut  short,  her  food-supply  halved  by  our  seizing 
Canada  and  shutting  off  our  exports  of  foodstuffs,  her 


APPENDICES  295 

factories  would  be  shy  of  raw  materials,  and  her  govern- 
ment wanting  in  finances. 

Now,  turning  to  those  fundamental  causes  which  make 
war  between  nations,  such  as  economic  rivalries  and  race 
hatreds,  we  find  there  is  no  conflict  of  interests  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain.  Neither  England 
nor  the  United  States  seeks  territory.  As  long  as  Eng- 
land has  on  her  hands  the  development  of  South  Africa, 
Egypt,  Australia,  and  India,  she  cannot  wish  for  more. 
She  is  surfeited  with  colonies,  and  the  United  States 
wants  no  colonies.  England  has  what  she  wants;  her 
desire  for  territory  has  ended;  she  is  perfectly  satisfied 
if  outsiders  will  but  leave  her  alone;  and  any  nation 
wishing  to  fight  her  must  take  the  offensive. 

All  England's  policies  are  either  identical  or  non- 
conflicting  with  ours.  There  exists  no  keen  commercial 
rivalry  between  us.  Her  policy  of  free  trade  runs  par- 
allel with  ours;  and  England  has  always  stood  for  free 
trade.  All  her  great  colonies  are  self-governing  states 
whose  parliaments  have  the  power  of  levying  import 
duties  against  England  herself.  All  she  has  ever  de- 
sin  d  anywhere  was  colonies  for  free  commercial  develop- 
ment. She  levies  no  import  duties  of  any  kind,  not 
even  against  her  keenest  rival,  Germany.  In  parts  of 
her  own  colonies  German  trade  before  the  present  war 
was  greater  than  her  own. 

As  a  result  of  her  economic  conception  of  free  trade 
England  has  naturally  decided  to  uphold  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  in  South  America.  In  fact,  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine was  launched  at  the  suggestion  of  her  own  prime 
minister;  and  recognizing  that  free  trade  gives  her  all 
the  advantages  she  desires,  she  has  unreservedly  ac- 
cepted it.  England  desires  no  further  colonies  in  South 
America.  Why  should  she  when  she  has  all  the  advan- 
tages without  the  protective  responsibilities?  What 


296  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

England  wants  is  that  no  other  power  shall  colonize 
and  monopolize  South  America.  Having  her  great  share 
in  the  trade  in  South  America,  she  wants  that  territory 
held  open  that  she  may  continue  that  trade.  The  fact 
is  that  in  many  of  the  republics  of  South  America  Eng- 
lishmen already  have  full  sway.  In  Venezuela,  England 
not  only  has  a  large  percentage  of  the  trade,  but  English 
capitalists  control  almost  all  of  the  enterprises;  while  in 
Peru  an  English  corporation  levies  and  collects  all  the 
taxes,  and  manages  the  government  of  that  republic.  In 
short,  England  has  all  she  could  want  in  South  America, 
and  she  is  heartily  in  accord  with  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Again  England's  point  of  view  of  free  trade  points  to 
the  fact  that  she  will  stand  by  us  in  the  "open  door" 
policy  in  China.  England  does  not  want  a  partition  of 
China;  she  has  had  a  lesson  in  India.  What  she  wants 
is  an  open  territory  for  free  trade  in  China;  and  in  this 
she  stands  identically  with  the  United  States.  It  was 
England  who  prevented  Japan  from  forcing  her  recent 
ultimatum  on  China.  When  Japan  issued  her  ultimatum 
that  China  supplant  all  Western  experts  with  Japanese 
experts,  and  that  China  employ  only  Japanese  experts 
in  the  future,  England  said,  "No,"  and  Japan  did  not 
force  the  ultimatum.  England  could  not  consent  to  the 
Chinese  industries  being  monopolized  by  Japan;  she 
wanted  those  industries  held  open,  and,  gentlemen,  if 
England  objected  to  Japan's  merely  trying  to  direct  the 
commercial  development  of  China,  would  she  not  ob- 
ject to  Japan's  attempting  a  conquest  of  that  republic? 
In  this  England  would  stand  identically  with  the  United 
States.  Therefore,  England  is  not  going  to  war  with  the 
United  States  over  the  Far  Eastern  question. 

English  ideals  and  ideas  are  fundamentally  identical 
with  ours.  We  are  of  a  common  stock  and  common 
language;  we  have  common  literature  and  common 


APPENDICES  297 

religion;  we  enjoy  the  same  system  of  laws  and  the  same 
ideals  of  government;  our  standards  of  morality  and 
tastes  are  the  same — in  short,  we  have  much  the  same 
outlook  on  life.  We  are  part  and  parcel  of  the  British 
civilization.  All  our  fundamental  principles  were  brought 
over  here  by  our  forefathers  in  the  Mayflower,  together 
with  their  teakettles,  spinning-wheels,  and  other  heir- 
looms with  which  to  set  up  a  new  civilization  in  the  wilds 
of  Massachusetts.  A  deep-seated  and  fundamental 
friendliness  and  sympathy  exists  between  us,  and  the 
personal  relations  of  a  people  that  are  one.  The  decline 
of  provincial  self-assertion  on  the  one  side  and  of  con- 
servative prejudice  on  the  other  has  developed  a  friend- 
ship that  can  even  withstand  a  Venezuelan  affair. 

England's  neutrality  in  the  Spanish-American  War 
gave  proof  of  her  friendship.  At  that  time  when  her 
enmity  might  have  brought  down  the  powers  of  all 
Europe  on  our  heads,  England  held  herself  strictly 
neutral;  and  shortly  afterward  she  consented  to  the 
Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty,  leaving  us  to  build  and  operate 
the  Panama  Canal  alone;  yes,  even  fortify  it.  Later  in 
the  Anglo- Japanese  Alliance,  England  specifically  stated 
that  under  no  circumstances  would  she  assist  Japan  in  ;i 
war  against  the  United  States;  and  more  recently,  during 
the  Panama  Canal  tolls  controversy,  the  British  Premier 
got  up  in  Parliament  and  said  that  no  matter  whether  we 
did  her  justice  or  not,  England  had  no  idea  of  going  to 
war  with  the  United  States  over  the  tolls  proposition. 

Besides  these  particular  acts  of  friendship  Great 
Britain  has  dismantled  her  forts  in  the  West  Indies 
and  acquiesced  in  the  American  doctrine  of  the  para- 
mount interest  of  the  United  States  in  the  New  World, 
allowing  us  to  take  complete  charge  of  all  Europe's  debts, 
and  the  settlement  of  all  revolutions  in  Central  America. 

And  that  this  feeling  is  reciprocated  in  the  United 


298  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

States  let  the  $500,000,000  Anglo-French  loan  bear  wit- 
ness! Let  the  munitions  furnished  the  Allies  bear 
witness !  Let  the  pro- Ally  sentiment  in  America  bear  wit- 
ness! In  fact,  so  strong  has  the  English  sentiment  in 
these  United  States  become  that  to-day  many  leading 
Americans  are  seriously  discussing  the  wisdom  of  an 
Anglo-American  alliance,  whereby  our  common  interests 
and  good  intentions  might  take  formal  shape,  and  this 
sentiment  for  an  Anglo-American  alliance  is  openly  ex- 
pressed by  such  men  as  Charles  W.  Eliot  of  Harvard. 

Only  a  continued  pressure  of  conflicting  interests 
could  break  down  this  friendship  which  our  common 
interests  have  developed  between  us,  and  those  con- 
flicting interests  do  not  exist  to-day.  The  modern  world 
is  moving  toward  a  union  of  those  of  the  same  blood; 
the  feeling  of  nationality  is  the  most  potent  instrument 
to-day  in  uniting  a  people,  and  the  Anglo-American  har- 
mony is  in  keeping  with  this  trend  of  the  modern  world. 

Gentlemen,  we  have  shown  you  that  there  is  no  danger 
of  war  with  England  at  the  present  time.  Now  let  us 
suppose  that  England  comes  out  of  the  present  war  the 
supreme  power  of  the  world.  She  would  then  have  all 
she  desired  and  probably  more.  She  would  have  no 
reason  whatsoever  for  attacking  the  United  States. 
Besides  owing  us  a  deep  debt  of  gratitude  for  our  sup- 
port in  the  present  war,  the  same  deterring  economic 
forces  would  operate  as  now.  Her  doctrine  of  open  door 
runs  parallel  with  that  of  the  United  States,  and  all  her 
policies  and  interests  are  identical  or  non-conflicting 
with  ours.  Our  ever-increasing  friendship  based  on 
our  common  stock,  common  language,  common  litera- 
ture, and  common  religion;  our  same  system  of  laws, 
our  same  ideals  of  government,  and  like  standards  of 
morality  and  taste — are  contrary  to  all  causes  of  war; 
and  our  sacred  treaties  prevent  any  passionate  running 


APPENDICES  299 

into  war  over  some  fancied  insult  such  as  the  seizure  of 
a  mail-bag  or  the  carrying  of  a  merchant-ship  to  Nova 
Scotia. 

What,  then,  is  left  for  us  to  consider?  Suppose  the 
war  ended  as  a  draw.  Under  those  circumstances  will 
we  not  see  a  world  so  war-weary  that  the  fondest  dreams 
of  international  peace  under  international  law  shall  be 
an  accomplished  fact?  But  should  this  not  come  true, 
the  next  decade  will  see  the  powers  of  all  Europe  gath- 
ering their  forces  into  two  great  warring  camps  preparing 
for  another  and  decisive  conflict.  In  one  of  these  camps 
will  be  England,  in  the  other  Germany,  each  vying  with 
the  other  in  rallying  forces,  each  preserving  all  the  friends 
she  already  has,  and  making  as  many  new  alliances  as 
possible.  Neither  can  afford  to  see  one  of  her  potential 
allies  smashed,  and  each  must  come  to  the  assistance  of 
a  potential  ally,  if  such  is  the  probability. 

In  just  this  relation  stands  England  with  the  United 
States.  Just  as  England  was  driven  to  the  assistance  of 
France  and  Russia  in  the  present  war,  lest  they  be 
crushed  and  she  be  forced  to  fight  Germany  single- 
handed,  she  must  in  the  future  come  to  the  assistance 
of  the  United  States — her  potential  ally  in  any  future 
war. 

If  this  war  conies  out  a  draw,  any  realignment  of 
powers  will  find  England  on  the  side  of  the  United 
States,  for  it  is  a  plain  case  that  if  England  can  only 
fight  the  present  war  to  a  draw  with  all  the  assistance 
of  the  United  States  in  munitions,  foods,  and  finances, 
she  would  not  dare  enter  another  war  without  our  sup- 
port. She  could  not  allow  us  to  be  smashed  and  our 
vast  resources  placed  in  the  hands  of  her  enemies. 

Should  Germany  ally  herself  with  any  nation  or  group 
of  nations  and  attack  the  United  States  it  would  mean 
another  world  war;  and  just  as  England  came  to  the 


300  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

rescue  of  France  and  Russia,  she  would  come  to  ours. 
With  her  assistance  our  combined  navies  would  sweep 
the  seas,  and  no  enemy  could  ever  set  foot  on  American 
soil. 

This,  then,  is  the  peculiarly  favorable  position  of  the 
United  States.  We  will  have  the  aid  of  England  in  all 
wars;  with  the  aid  of  England  we  will  be  invincible. 

We  challenge  the  gentlemen  of  the  Affirmative  to 
show  us  a  single  combination  of  powers  which  these 
United  States  will  have  to  face  at  the  close  of  the  pres- 
ent war,  which,  if  too  great  for  us  to  handle  alone, 
England  will  not  assist  us  in  opposing. 

My  colleague  has  called  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  we  are  amply  prepared  right  now  to  fight  Mexico, 
Japan,  or  Germany,  and  I  have  shown  you  the  improb- 
ability of  war  with  England,  both  present  and  future, 
and  have  pointed  out  that  in  any  future  combination  of 
powers  against  the  United  States,  England  will,  from 
necessity,  be  found  on  our  side;  and  that  with  the  as- 
sistance of  her  navy  we  can  successfully  cope  with  any 
force.  We  of  the  Negative  are  opposed  to  any  present 
material  increase  in  our  armament. 

(Nora. — The  decision  of  the  judges  was  in  favor  of  the 
Affirmative.) 


Ill 

RULES  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  PROCEDURE 

FOREWORD 

Every  American  citizen  should  know  at  least  the 
simpler  rules  of  parliamentary  law.  It  is  sometimes 
said  that  a  man  who  understands  parliamentary  pro- 
cedure may  get  what  he  wants.  At  any  rate,  a  person 
who  does  not  know  how  to  proceed  before  a  deliberative 
assembly  is  very  seriously  handicapped.  In  the  course 
of  time  a  large  number  of  rules  have  been  formulated 
to  govern  the  actions  of  assemblies.  We  shall  make 
no  attempt  to  go  into  the  details  and  the  finer  points 
regarding  such  rules.  The  rules  that  follow  are  those 
which  every  citizen  ought  to  know,  and  will  usually  be 
found  sufficient  for  the  conduct  of  a  literary  or  debating 
society.  It  would  be  well  for  the  members  of  a  society, 
and  particularly  the  president,  to  have  at  hand  a 
standard  treatise  on  parliamentary  law  such  as  Roberts's 
Rules  of  Order  and  to  devote  five  or  ten  minutes  occa- 
sionally at  the  meetings  to  drill  in  procedure. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  parliamentary  rules 
are  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  in  despatching  business, 
and  not  to  prevent  or  hinder.  True,  one  is  wholly  jus- 
tified in  raising  questions  of  procedure  relative  to  a 
motion  which  he  is  either  favoring  or  opposing,  but  he 
who  raises  technical  objections  merely  for  the  purpose 


302  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

of  showing  his  knowledge  of  parliamentary  law  is  a 
public  nuisance. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE   SOCIETY 

The  ordinary  procedure  in  presenting  and  deciding 
matters  before  a  meeting  can  be  illustrated  by  consider- 
ing for  a  moment  the  organization  of  a  literary  or  de- 
bating society.  Suppose  a  few  students  are  interested 
in  public  speaking  and  debating  and  wish  to  form  an 
organization  for  the  study  and  practice  of  these  arts. 
They  meet  together  informally  and  talk  over  the  pros- 
pects for  a  successful  society.  If  prospects  seem  en- 
couraging, a  notice  is  given  of  a  time  and  place  of 
meeting  for  the  organization  of  such  a  society.  Upon 
meeting,  some  one  rises  and  says,  for  instance,  "Gentle- 
men, since  we  have  decided  to  form  a  literary  society,  I 
suggest  that  we  proceed  to  business.  I  nominate  Mr. 
Smith  for  temporary  chairman  of  the  meeting."  Some 
one  seconds  the  motion,  and  the  member  making  the 
nomination  puts  the  question.  Mr.  Smith  is  declared 
elected  and  takes  the  chair.  The  chairman  then  calls  for 
nominations  for  a  temporary  secretary,  and  Mr.  Jones 
rises  and  says,  "Mr.  Chairman." 

CHAIRMAN:  "Mr.  Jones." 

MR.  JONES:  "Mr.  Chairman,  I  nominate  Mr.  Thomp- 
son." 

The  chair  then  calls  for  other  nominations,  and  if 
there  are  none  he  puts  the  question,  and  Mr.  Thomp- 
son is  declared  elected.  The  meeting  is  then  organized 
and  can  proceed  to  business,  the  temporary  secretary 
keeping  hill  minutes  of  what  takes  place.  The  next 
step  would  usually  be  to  appoint  a  committee  to  draw 
up  a  constitution  and  by-laws  for  the  organization,  or, 
if  it  is  desired  to  use  the  constitution  in  this  bulletin, 


APPENDICES  303 

the  meeting  could  at  once  take  up  the  discussion  of  it, 
section  by  section,  making  any  changes  they  desire. 
Whenever  the  constitution  is  adopted,  the  next  thing  is 
to  elect  the  permanent  officers.  These  officers  may  be 
installed  at  this  or  at  a  second  meeting.  As  soon  as 
the  installation  takes  place  the  president  should  at  once 
appoint  any  standing  committees  provided  for  in  the 
constitution.  A  program  should  be  arranged  for  the 
next  meeting,  and  thereafter  the  meetings  should  be 
conducted  in  accordance  with  the  "Order  of  Busi- 
ness" as  specified  in  the  by-laws. 

All  business  is  introduced  to  the  society  in  some  form 
of  a  resolution  or  motion.  The  general  form  of  present- 
ing a  motion  has  been  shown  above.  In  dealing  with  a 
motion,  these  four  steps  are  always  to  be  observed: 

(1)  A  member  rises  from  the  floor,  and,  after  address- 
ing the  chair  and  securing  recognition,  he  presents  his 
motion. 

(2)  After  the  motion  has  been  seconded,  the  presiding 
officer  states  it.     It  is  then  before  the  assembly  for  such 
discussion  as  may  be  desired. 

(3)  When  the  debate  is  closed  on  the  motion,  the 
question  is  put  to  vote  by  the  chairman. 

(4)  The  result  of  the  vote  is  announced  by  the  pre- 
siding officer. 

GENERAL  TERMS 

Quorum. — The  usual  practice  in  any  deliberative  so- 
ciety is  to  require  the  presence  of  one-half  of  the  active 
membership  to  transact  any  business,  except  to  adjourn, 
which  may  be  done  by  any  number.  If  there  is  really 
no  objection  to  the  business  to  be  transacted,  the 
question  of  a  quorum  need  not  be  raised.  The  by-laws 
of  the  society  may  prescribe  a  different  number  to  con- 
stitute a  quorum. 


304  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

Voting. — Except  as  othenvise  provided  in  the  by-laws, 
voting  on  a  motion  or  resolution  is  usually  done  viva 
voce.  That  is,  all  in  favor  of  the  motion  say,  "Aye," 
all  opposed,  "No."  In  case  of  a  tie  the  chairman's  vote 
decides.  In  case  of  doubt  as  to  the  result  of  a  vote, 
any  member  may  call  for  a  rising  vote,  or  the  chairman 
himself  may,  of  his  own  accord,  call  for  such  a  vote. 
When  it  is  desired  to  keep  secret  how  individuals  vote  on 
a  question,  a  motion  may  be  made  to  vote  by  ballot. 
By  a  majority  vote  the  society  may  also  order  the  sec- 
retary to  call  the  names  of  members  to  vote  on  any 
motion.  If  in  favor,  a  member  votes  "Aye" ;  if  opposed, 
"No." 

Reports  of  Committees. — Under  the  regular  order  of 
business  the  chairman  of  the  committee  secures  the  floor 

and  says,  "The  committee  on begs  leave  to 

report  that (gives  report) all  of 

which  is  respectfully  submitted."  A  minority  of  the 
committee  differing  from  the  majority  may  also  present 
a  report  in  the  same  manner. 

CLASSIFICATION  OP   MOTIONS 

Motions  are  usually  divided  into  four  general  classes — 
Principal,  Privileged,  Incidental,  and  Subsidiary. 

Principal  Motion. — Any  motion  which  brings  original 
business  before  the  house  is  known  as  the  principal 
motion,  or  the  main  question,  after  it  has  been  put  by 
the  presiding  officer.  It  is  the  general  rule  that  when 
the  main  question  is  regularly  before  the  house  no  other 
question  can  arise  unless  it  be  a  motion  offered  for  the 
purpose  of  aiding  in  the  disposition  of  the  main  ques- 
tion. The  purpose  of  motions  affecting  the  main  ques- 
tion before  the  house  may  be  indicated  as  follows: 

i.  If  a  member  desires  entirely  to  shut  off  further 


APPENDICES  305 

action  on  the  subject,  he  makes  a  motion  either  (a)  to 
lay  on  the  table  or  (b)  to  postpone  indefinitely. 

2.  If  a  member  desires  to  put  off  to  some  future  time 
action  on  any  matter,  he  makes  a  motion  either  to  (a) 
postpone  to  a  certain  time  or  (b)  to  lay  on  the  table. 

3.  If  a  member  desires  to  stop  further  discussion  and 
bring  the  main  question  at  once  to  vote,  he  makes  a 
motion  either  (a)  for  the  previous  question  or  (b)  to 
limit  debate. 

4.  If  a  member  is  generally  favorable  to  the  principal 
motion,  but  wishes  to  have  it  passed  in  a  modified  or 
altered  form,  he  makes  a  motion  either  (a)  to  commit, 
refer,  or  recommit  to  a  committee  or  (b)  to  amend. 

5.  If  a  member  desires  that  the  action  of  a  society 
already  taken  on  some  matter  be  changed,  he  makes  a 
motion  either  to  reconsider  or  to  rescind. 

6.  If  a  member  thinks  that  the  society  is  not  pro- 
ceeding according  to  parliamentary  rule,  he  rises  to  a 
point  of  order;    and,  if  his  point  of  order  is  not  sus- 
tained by  the  presiding  officer,  he  may  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  the  chair. 


PRIVILEGED   MOTIONS 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  various  specific  motions  a  little 
more  in  detail.  Certain  of  these  are  called  " privileged" 
because  they  are  entitled  to  precedence  over  all  other 
motions.  Generally  speaking,  they  are  always  in  order, 
and  any  other  matter  or  business  must  yield  to  them. 
The  privileged  motions  are  as  follows: 

i.  To  Adjourn. — The  motion  simply  to  adjourn  (that 
is,  unqualified),  although  always  in  order,  has  the  follow- 
ing limitations:  It  supersedes  all  other  questions  except 
fixing  the  time  for  the  next  meeting ;  it  cannot  be  received 
while  a  member  is  speaking  unless  he  consents  to  give 


3o6  HOW   TO    DEBATE 

way  for  that  purpose;  it  cannot  be  entertained  while  a 
vote  is  being  taken  upon  another  motion;  it  cannot  be 
debated,  amended,  committed,  postponed,  reconsidered, 
or  laid  on  the  table.  It  cannot,  after  being  once  voted 
down,  be  renewed  unless  other  business  intervenes.  If 
qualified  as  to  time,  or  in  any  other  manner,  a  motion 
to  adjourn  ceases  to  be  privileged  and  becomes  a  main 
question. 

2.  Questions  of  Privilege. — This  has  reference  to  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  the  assembly  and  of  its  mem- 
bers.    It  does  not  require  a  second;   a  majority  carries 
the  motion.     It  can  be  amended,  debated,  committed, 
postponed,  reconsidered,  or  laid  on  the  table.    The  form 
of  presenting  a  question  of  privilege  is  as  follows: 

MEMBER:  "  I  rise  to  a  question  of  privilege."  CHAIR- 
MAN :  ' ' State  your  question . "  MEMBER:  * '  I  am  charged 

with "    The  chairman  makes  a  ruling,  which  is 

subject  to  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  chair. 

3.  Order  of  Business. — The  order  of  business  as  fixed 
by  the  by-laws  must  be  followed  at  each  meeting  unless 
changed  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  society.    A  motion 
for  a  special  order  does  not  require  a  second,  requires 
two-thirds  vote  for  passage,  is  not  debatable,  cannot  be 
amended,  postponed,  reconsidered,  or  laid  on  the  table, 
and  is  not  subject  to  previous  question. 

INCIDENTAL  MOTIONS 

These  motions  are  entitled  to  precedence  over  all  ex- 
cept privileged  questions,  and  must  be  disposed  of  when 
they  arise. 

The  incidental  motions  are  as  follows: 

i .  Questions  of  Order. — When  a  point  of  order  is  raised, 
the  chairman  makes  a  ruling  which  stands  as  final  unless 
the  assembly  takes  the  matter  into  its  own  hands  by 


APPENDICES  307 

an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  chair.  A  motion 
to  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  chair  requires  a  second, 
requires  majority  vote,  is  not  debatable  (as  a  general 
rule),  cannot  be  amended,  committed,  or  postponed, 
cannot  be  renewed  after  once  decided,  is  not  in  order 
when  another  appeal  is  pending.  In  case  of  a  tie  vote 
the  chair  is  sustained.  The  procedure  in  an  appeal 
from  the  decision  of  the  chair  is  as  follows:  MEMBER: 
44 1  rise  to  a  point  of  order."  CHAIRMAN:  "State  your 
point."  The  member  then  states  his  point,  the  chairman 
making  his  ruling  thereon.  MEMBER:  "I  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  the  chair."  CHAIRMAN:  "The  question 
is,  'Shall  the  chair  be  sustained?'  or,  'Shall  the  decision 
of  the  chair  stand  as  the  decision  of  the  assembly?'" 

2.  To  Withdraw  a  Motion. — When  a  motion  is  regularly 
made  and  seconded,  it  cannot  be  withdrawn  except  by 
a  vote  of  the  assembly.     This  is  accomplished  by  a 
motion  that  the  member  be  allowed  to  withdraw  his 
motion.     This  is  decided  by  a  majority  vote,  does  not  re- 
quire a  second,  cannot  be  debated,  amended,  committed, 
or  postponed,  is  not  subject  to  previous  question,  can 
be  reconsidered  or  laid  on  the  table. 

3.  To  Suspend  a  Rule. — Whenever  it  is  desired  to  de- 
part from  the  regular  order  of  business,  a  motion  to 
suspend  the  rule  is  in  order.     In  case  there  is  no  ob- 
jection to  doing  a  thing  contrary  to  rule,  there  is  no 
need  for  a  motion.     The  constitution  and  by-laws  of 
the  society,  however,  cannot  be  suspended.     A  motion 
to  suspend  a  rule  requires  a  second,  requires  a  two- 
thirds  vote,  cannot  be  debated,  amended,  committed, 
postponed,  reconsidered,  or  laid  on  the  table.     It  cannot 
be  renewed  at  the  same  meeting.    An  undebatable  ques- 
tion cannot  be  made  debatable  by  suspending  the  rule. 

4.  To  Reconsider. — When  a  motion  has  once  been  duly 
passed  it  cannot  be  reconsidered  by  the  society  except 


3o8  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

by  formal  motion.  A  motion  to  reconsider  a  main 
question  must  be  made  by  some  one  who  voted  for  it 
when  the  motion  was  carried  (else  a  majority  might  in- 
definitely prolong  the  debate),  and  it  must  be  made  at 
the  same  or  the  next  succeeding  meeting.  If  the  motion 
to  reconsider  is  lost,  the  main  question  is  finally  disposed 
of;  if  the  motion  to  reconsider  is  carried,  the  main  ques- 
tion is  again  before  the  house.  A  motion  to  reconsider 
requires  a  second,  majority  vote,  is  debatable  if  the 
main  question  to  which  it  refers  is  debatable,  cannot 
be  amended,  committed,  postponed,  or  reconsidered.  It 
can  be  laid  on  the  table,  not  tabling  the  main  question. 
An  assembly  cannot  reconsider  motions  to  adjourn,  to 
suspend  the  rules,  or  to  reconsider.  If  a  motion  to  re- 
consider is  carried,  the  original  question  is  again  before 
the  house  as  if  it  had  never  been  acted  on. 

SUBSIDIARY   MOTIONS 

The  object  of  subsidiary  motions  is  to  postpone  or 
modify  action  on  the  principal  motion,  definitely  or  in- 
definitely— i.e.,  they  help  to  dispose  of  main  questions 
and  have  to  be  decided  before  the  main  question  to 
which  they  apply.  They  yield  to  privileged  or  inciden- 
tal questions.  The  subsidiary  motions  are: 

1 .  To  Lay  on  the  Table. — This  motion  is  usually  resorted 
to  when  it  is  desired  to  put  aside  a  question  either  tem- 
porarily or  more  or  less  indefinitely.     A  motion  laid  on 
the  table  may  be  taken  up  again  whenever  the  assembly 
so  desires.    It  cannot  be  debated,  committed,  amended, 
or  postponed,  is  not  subject  to  previous  question,  and 
cannot  be  laid  on  the  table.     If  carried,  this  motion  lays 
on  the  table  the  principal  motion  and  all  secondary  to  it. 

2.  Previous  Question. — The  object  of  this  motion  is  to 
shut  off  further  debate  and  to  bring  the  main  question 


APPENDICES  309 

to  a  vote  at  once.  It  applies  only  to  debatable  ques- 
tions. If  carried  it  puts  the  main  question  without  de- 
lay before  the  house.  It  requires  a  two-thirds  vote, 
must  be  seconded,  cannot  be  debated,  amended,  com- 
mitted, or  postponed,  is  not  subject  to  previous  question, 
cannot  be  reconsidered  if  lost,  can  be  reconsidered  if 
carried.  It  can  be  laid  on  the  table — carries  with  it 
entire  subject — main  and  secondary  motion.  If  lost,  it 
leaves  the  main  question  as  before  open  to  debate. 
Resort  to  this  motion  is  sometimes  called  applying  the 
"gag  law,"  and  should  be  resorted  to  only  when  the 
discussion  of  a  motion  has  been  unnecessarily  prolonged. 
The  form  of  the  motion  is  as  follows:  MEMBER:  "  I  move 
the  previous  question."  Upon  receiving  a  second,  the 
chairman  puts  the  motion  as  follows:  "Shall  the  main 
question  be  now  put?" 

3.  Postpone  to  Time  Certain. — When  the  assembly  is 
willing  to  consider  a  motion,  but  not  at  a  time  when  it 
is  made,  the  motion  to  postpone  to  a  definite  time  is  in 
order.     Such  a  motion  requires  a  majority  vote,  can 
be  debated,  can  be  amended  as  to  time,  cannot  be  com- 
mitted or  postponed.     A  question  postponed  to  a  time 
certain  can  be  taken  up  before  that  time  arrives  by  a 
two-thirds  vote. 

4.  To  Commit,  Refer,  or  Recommit. — When  an  assembly 
is  not  ready  to  vote  on  a  question,  such  question  may  be 
sent  to  a  committee  for  consideration  and  report,  or  it 
may  be  referred  to  a  special  committee,  or,  if  the  assem- 
bly wishes  further  action  by  a  committee,  it  may  be  re- 
committed to  such  committee. 

5.  To  Amend. — A  motion  to  amend  is  properly  a  mo- 
tion friendly  to  the  proposition  to  be  amended,  its  object 
being  to  correct  or  improve  the  form  or  statement  of 
the  principal  motion.     Amendments  are  made  by  the 
insertion,  addition,  substitution,  or  omission  of  words  or 

21 


310  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

sentences.  In  general,  a  motion  to  amend  is  subject  to 
the  same  rules  as  the  question  to  which  it  is  applied. 
If  a  main  question  is  committed,  postponed,  or  laid  on 
the  table,  it  takes  all  amendments  with  it.  An  amend- 
ment is  always  put  before  the  main  question.  An  amend- 
ment to  an  amendment  cannot  be  amended;  if  one 
amendment  to  an  amendment  is  not  satisfactory,  it 
must  be  voted  down  and  another  substituted.  An 
amendment  must  be  germane  to  the  motion  which  it 
seeks  to  modify — that  is,  it  must  not  relate  to  a  wholly 
different  matter. 

Finally,  let  it  be  said  again  that  the  procedure  in  all 
deliberative  bodies  should  be  carried  on  in  an  orderly 
manner,  and  it  is  better  for  school  literary  societies  to 
train  themselves  in  excessive  care  for  forms  of  pro- 
cedure rather  than  to  conduct  meetings  in  a  slipshod 
fashion.  The  president  should  see  that  order  is  duly 
preserved;  that  all  motions  are  made  in  due  form; 
that  there  is  only  one  matter  of  business  considered  at 
a  time;  that  all  discussion  be  limited  to  the  motion 
before  the  house;  and  that,  after  a  member  has  secured 
the  floor  in  proper  form,  he  be  heard  without  interrup- 
tion, except  on  a  point  of  order. 

By  way  of  summary,  the  following  tabulation  will  be 
found  helpful  for  ready  reference: 

MOTIONS  IN  ORDER  OF  RANK 
(Debatable  motions  are  printed  in  black  type) 

PRIVILEGED  MOTIONS: 

*  To  Fix  the  Time  or  Place  at  Which  to  Reassemble. 
**    To  Adjourn. 

*  Privileged  Questions. 

Call  for  the  Orders  of  the  Day. 


APPENDICES  311 

INCIDENTAL  MOTIONS: 

}     Questions  of  Order   j  ^aisinff  the  Que?tion- 

(  Appeal  from  Decision  of  Chair. 

t     Objection  to  the  Consideration  of  a  Question. 
To  Read  a  Paper. 

*  To  Divide  a  Resolution. 

To  Permit  the  Withdrawal  of  a  Motion, 
t     To  Suspend  Rules  of  Order. 

SUBSIDIARY  MOTIONS: 

To  Lay  on  the  Table, 
t     The  Previous  Question. 

*  To  Postpone  to  a  Certain  Day. 

*  To  Commit,  refer,  or  recommit. 

*  To  Amend.  ) 

To  Postpone  Indefinitely.    \    E*Ual  rank' 

PRINCIPAL  MOTIONS: 

*  To  Expunge. 

*  To  Rescind  or  Repeal. 

*  Main  Motion,  or  Resolution. 

MISCELLANEOUS  MOTIONS: 
t**  To  Reconsider. 

Ordering  the  Method  of  Voting. 

Renewing  a  Motion. 

*  May  be  amended, 
t  Requires  a  two-thirds  majority. 
**  Cannot  be  reconsidered. 
J  Is  in  order  when  another  has  the  floor. 


IV 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES,  REFERENCES,  AND  HELPS  FOR  DEBATERS 

Treatises  on  Debate 

ALDEN,    R.    M.     The   Art   of  Debate.     1900.     (Henry 

Holt  &  Co.,  New  York.)     $i. 
ASKEW,  J.  B.     Pros  and  Cons.     1906.     (E.  P.  Dutton 

&  Co.,     New  York.)     60  cents. 
BAKER,  G.  P.,  and  HUNTINGTON,  H.  B.     The  Principles 

of  Argumentation.     (Ginn  &  Co.,  Boston.)     $1.25. 
BROOKINGS,  W.  D.,  and  RING  WALT,  R.  C.    Briefs  for 

Debate.     1895.     (Longmans,    Green    &    Co.,  New 

York.)     $i. 
BROWN,   C.    W.     Complete   Debater's   Manual.     (F.   J. 

Drake  &  Co.,  Chicago.)     75  cents;  paper,  50  cents. 
BUCK,  G.     Argumentative  Writing.     1899.     (Henry  Holt 

&  Co.,  New  York.)     80  cents. 
CRAIG,  A.  H.    Pros  and  Cons.    1897.    (Hinds,  Hayden  & 

Eldredge,  New  York.)     $1.50. 
DENNEY,    J.    V.    Argumentation    and    Debate.     1910. 

(American  Book  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio.)     $1.25. 
DICK    AND    FITZGERALD.    How    to    Talk    and    Debate. 

(Dick  &  Fitzgerald,  New  York.)     10  cents. 
FOSTER,  W.  H.     Debating  for  Boys.     1915.     (Sturgis  & 

Walton  Co.,  New  York.)     75  cents. 
FOSTER,   W.   T.     Argumentation  and  Debating.     1908. 

(Houghton  Mifflin  Co.,  New  York.)     $1.25. 


APPENDICES  313 

GARDNER,  J.  H.  The  Making  of  Arguments.  1912. 
(Ginn  &  Co.,  Boston.)  $i. 

HENRY,  W.  H.  F.  Practical  Debater.  (Normal  Pub. 
House,  Danville,  Indiana.)  40  cents. 

HOLYOKE,  G.  J.  Public  Speaking' and  Debate.  (Ginn  & 
Co.,  Boston.)  $i. 

JONES,  L.  Manual  for  Debaters.  (University  of  Wash- 
ington, Seattle.)  15  cents. 

KETCHAM,  V.  A.  The  Theory  and  Practice  of  Argumen- 
tation and  Debate.  1914.  (The  Macmillan  Co.,  New 
York.)  $1.25. 

KINNAMAN,  A.  J.  Debater's  Handbook.  (T.  S.  Deni- 
son,  163  Randolph  Street,  Chicago.)  50  cents. 

KLEISER,  G.  How  to  Argue  and  Win.  1910.  (Funk 
&  Wagnalls  Co.,  New  York.)  $1.25. 

KLINE,  R.  E.  P.  Argumentation  and  Debate.  1910. 
(LaSalle  Extension  University,  Chicago.)  25  cents. 

KNOWLES,  J.  S.  Handbook  of  Debate.  (Lothrop,  Lee  & 
Shepard  Co.,  Boston.)  50  cents. 

LAYCOCK,  C.,  and  SCALES,  R.  S.  Argumentation  and 
Debate.  1904.  (The  Macmillan  Co.,  New  York.) 
$1.10. 

LAYCOCK,  C.,  and  SPOFFORD,  A.  K.  Manual  of  Argu- 
mentation. 1906.  (The  Macmillan  Co.,  New  York.) 
50  cents. 

LYMAN,  R.  L.  Principles  of  Effective  Debating.  (H.  W. 
Wilson  Co.,  White  Plains,  New  York.)  15  cents. 

LYON,  L.  S.  Elements  of  Debating.  1913.  (Univer- 
sity of  Chicago  Press,  Chicago.)  $i. 

MACEWAN,  E.  J.  The  Essentials  of  Argumentation. 
1898.  (D.  C.  Heath  &  Co.,  Boston.)  $1.12. 

MACPHERSON,  W.  How  to  Argue  Successfully.  1904. 
(E.  P.  Dutton  &  Co.,  New  York.)  60  cents. 

PATTEE,  G.  K.  Practical  Argumentation.  1909.  (The 
Century  Co.,  New  York.)  $1.10. 


3i4  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

PERRY,  F.  M.    Introductory  Course  in  Argumentation. 

1906.     (American  Book  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio.)  $i. 
PITTENGER,  W.     Debater's  Treasury.     (The  Perm  Pub. 

Co.,  Philadelphia.)     50  cents. 
ROBBINS,    E.    C.     High    School    Debate    Book.     1911. 

(McClurg  &  Co.,  Chicago.)     $i. 
ROWTON,  F.     Debater.     (Longmans,  Green  &  Co.,  New 

York.)     $2. 
ROWTON,  F.     Compute  Debater.     (Excelsior  Pub.  House, 

New  York.)     75  cents;  paper,  50  cents. 
SHOW,  W.  C.,  and  WEAVER,  A.  T.    Information  for  De- 
baters.    1913.     (Dartmouth   University,    Hanover, 

New  Hampshire.)     25  cents. 
SHURTER,  E.  D.,  and  TAYLOR,  C.  C.    Both  Sides  of  100 

Public  Questions  Debated.  1913.     (Hinds,  Hayden  & 

Eldredge,  New  York.)     $1.25. 
SIDGWICK,  A.    Process  of  Argument.     1913.     (The  Mac- 

millan  Co.,  New  York.)     $1.25. 
THOMAS,  R.  W.    Manual  of  Debate.     1910.     (American 

Book  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio.)     80  cents. 


Books  Containing  Specimens  of  Argumentation 

BARER,  G.  P.  Specimens  of  Argumentation.  (Henry 
Holt  &  Co.,  New  York.)  50  cents. 

BRADLEY,  C.  B.  Orations  and  Arguments.  1894.  (Allyn 
&  Bacon.)  $i. 

FIELD,  M.  Famous  Legal  Arguments.  (Sprague  Pub. 
Co.,  Detroit,  Michigan.)  $i. 

Nine  Complete  Debates.  (Excelsior  Pub.  House,  8  Mur- 
ray Street,  New  York.)  25  cents. 

NUTTER,  HERSEY  and  GREENOUGH.  Specimens  of  Prose 
Composition.  1907.  (Ginn  &  Co.,  Boston,  Massa- 
chusetts.) $i. 


APPENDICES  315 

PEARSON,  P.  M.,  and  NICHOLS,  E.  R.  Intercollegiate 
Debates.  Vols.  I-V.  Edited  annually.  (Hinds, 
Hayden,  &  Eldredge,  New  York.)  $ i . 50  per  volume. 

PERCIVAL,  M.,  and  JELLIFFE,  R.  A.  Specimens  of  Ex- 
position and  Argumentation.  1908.  (The  Macmillan 
Co.,  New  York.)  90  cents. 

SELLERS,  A.  Classics  of  the  Bar.  1909.  (Classic  Pub. 
Co.,  Baxley,  Georgia.)  $i. 

SHURTER,  E.  D.  Masterpieces  of  Modern  Oratory. 
(Ginn  &  Co.,  Boston,  Chicago,  and  Dallas.)  $i. 

VEEDER,  V.  Legal  Masterpieces.  1903.  (Keefe- 
Davidson  Law  Book  Co.,  St.  Paul,  Minnesota.) 
2  Volumes.  $6. 

WAGNER,  L.  Modern  Political  Orations.  (Henry  Holt 
&  Co.,  New  York.)  $i. 


Magazine  Articles  on  Debate1 

All  the  Year  Round.— 43:85,  "Our  Debating  Society." 
American  Journal  of  Education. — 1:495,    "Debating  a 
Means     of     Educational     Discipline."     (J.  N. 
McEUigott.) 

Arena.— 10:677,  "College  Debating."     (C.  Vrooman.) 
Bachelor  of  Arts. — 2:208,  "Debating  in  American  Col- 
leges."    (M.  M.  Miller.) 

Bentley's  Miscellany. — 19:615,   "Dangers  of   Debating 
Societies." 

1  Book  dealers  who  make  a  specialty  of  supplying  back-number 
magazines: 

St.  Paul  Book  and  Stationery  Co.,  55  E.  Sixth  Street,  St.  Paul. 

A.  S.  Clarke  &  Co.,  208  Washington  Street,  Peekskill,  N.  Y. 

The  H.  W.  Wilson  Co.,  1401  University  Avenue,  S.  E.,  Minne- 
apolis. 

C.  W.  Kroeck,  91 1#  Pine  Street,  St.  Louis. 


3i6  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

Century.— 82:937-942,  "College  Debating."    (R.  L.  Ly- 

man.) 
Chautauquan. — 13:18,  "Debate  and  Composition."     (J. 

M.  Buckley.) 
18:402,  "Principles  and  Practice  of  Debate."     (J. 

M.  Buckley.) 

18:532,  "Public  Oral  Debate."     (J.  M.  Buckley.) 
18:659,  "Preparation  and  Action  in  Debate  and 

Composition." 
Education. — 27:381,  "Forensic  Training  in  Colleges." 

(T.  C.  Trueblood.) 
33:38-49,  "Inter  and  Intra  High  School  Contests." 

(L.  S.  Lyon.) 
34:416-420,    "Group   Systems    in    Interscholastic 

Debating."     (D.  E.  Watkins.) 
42:475-485,     "Intercollegiate    Debates."     (C.    S. 

Baldwin.) 

Educational  Review. — 14:285,  "The  Teaching  of  Argu- 
mentation."    (G.  J.  Smith.) 

21 1244,  "  Intercollegiate  Debating."  (G.  P.  Baker.) 
Electric  Magazine. — 119:94,  "Argument  from  Analogy." 
Forum. — 22:633,  "Intercollegiate  Debates."  (R.  G. 

Ringwalt.) 

26:222,  "Intercollegiate  Debates."  (C.  F.  Bacon.) 
Nation. — 90:154-155,  "Value  of  Debate." 

90:452-453,  "College  Debating  and  Writing." 
90:556,  "College  Debating."     (E.  C.  Robins.) 
90:627,  "Debating  at  School."     (C.  Green.) 
94:456,  "Teaching  Argumentation." 
Open  Court. — 6:3391,  3415,  "A  Critic  of  Argument." 

(C.  S.  Pierce.) 

Outlook. — 104:271-272,  "Wits  versus  Conviction." 
Public  Speaking  Review. — 1:84,  "Coaching  a  Debate 
Team."     (T.  C.  Trueblood.) 


APPENDICES  317 

3:1,  "A  Difficult  Problem  for  the  Debater.     (J.  R. 

Pelsma.) 

3:5,  "Formulas  for  Special  Issues."    (H.  B.  Gough.) 
3:236,  "A  Basis  for  Judging  a  Debate."     (W.  C. 

Shaw.) 
4:1,   "The  Relation  of  Brief  to  the  Argument." 

(H.  B.  Huntington.) 

4:16,  "Popularizing  Debate."     (Glenn  Clark.) 
4:82,  "A  New  Briefing  Device."     (F.  B.  Robinson.) 
Quarterly   Journal    of   Public   Speaking. — 1:5,    "State 

Organization  for  Contests  in  Public  Speaking." 

(E.  D.  Shurter.) 
School   Review. — 19:534-545,   "Debating   in   the   High 

School."     (B.  L.  Gardner.) 
19:546-549,  "Motivation  of  Debate  in  Our  High 

Schools."     (H.  N.  Stowe.) 
19:689-693,  "Debating  in  the  High  School."     (E. 

C.  Hartwell.) 
20:120-124,    "Debating    in    the    High    School." 

(B.  L.  Gardner.) 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  lists  of  books  and  refer- 
ences, valuable  information  concerning  bibliographies, 
briefs,  debates,  and  other  loan  material  on  important 
questions  of  the  day  can  usually  be  secured  free  from 
the  Extension  Division  of  your  State  university;  and 
to  those  outside  the  State,  for  a  nominal  price  (usually 
about  five  to  fifteen  cents  for  each  bulletin) .  The  H.  W. 
Wilson  Co.,  White  Plains,  New  York,  makes  a  specialty 
of  supplying  debate  material,  both  on  a  loan  and  a  sale 
basis,  the  "Debater's  Handbook  Series"  being  especially 
valuable;  and  both  the  H.  W.  Wilson  Company  and 
Hinds,  Hayden  &  Eldredge  (30  Irving  Place,  New 
York)  publish  an  annual  containing  intercollegiate 
debates, 


3i8  HOW    TO    DEBATE 

Books  on  Parliamentary  Procedure 

BARTLETT,  W.  H.    Handy  Book  of  Parliamentary  Law. 

(T.  Y.  Crowell  &  Co.,  New  York.)     50  cents. 
BLAKELY,  W.  A.    Chart  of  Parliamentary  Rules.     (C. 

W.  Bardeen,  Syracuse,  New  York.)     25  cents. 
COGGINS,  P.  H.    Parliamentary  Law.     (Penn  Pub.  Co., 

Philadelphia.)     50  cents. 
CROWE,    T.    J.     Vest   Pocket   Parliamentary   Pointers. 

(T.  J.  Crowe,  Detroit,  Michigan.)     25  cents  and 

10  cents. 
GUSHING,    L.    S.    Manual   of  Parliamentary  Practice. 

(Excelsior  Pub.  House,  New  York.)     50  cents  and 

25  cents. 
DUNCAN,  P.  H.    Helpful  Rules  for  Parliamentary  Usage. 

(Standard  Pub.  Co.,  Cincinnati,  Ohio.)     25  cents. 
FELT,   O.   W.     Parliamentary  Procedure  for  Deliberate 

Assemblies.     (F.  J.   Drake  &  Co.,   Chicago.)     50 

cents. 
Fox,  E.  A.    Parliamentary  Usage  for  Women's  Clubs. 

(Baker  &  Taylor  Co.,  New  York.)     60  cents. 
GORE,  J.  H.    Manual  of  Parliamentary  Practice.     (D.  C. 

Heath  &  Co.,  Chicago.)     75  cents. 
GREGG,    F.    M.    Parliamentary   Law.     (Ginn   &   Co., 

Boston.)     50  cents. 
Hill's  Vest  Pocket  Rules  of  Order.     (David  McKay,  610 

S.  Washington  Square,  Philadelphia.)     25  cents. 
INGALLS,  J.  J.     Cushing's  Manual.     (A.  L.  Burt,  New 

York.)     50  cents. 

JEFFERSON,    THOS.     Manual    of    Parliamentary    Pro- 
cedure.    (C.  E.  Merrill  &  Co.,  New  York.)     $i. 
LEE,  J.   R.     Chromatic  Chart  and  Manual  of  Parlia- 
mentary Law.     (Rand-McNally  Co.,  Chicago.)    25 

cents. 


APPENDICES  319 

LOGAN,  E.  S.  Parliamentary  Rules  Made  Easy.  (E.  S. 
Logan,  Kansas  City,  Missouri.)  75  cents. 

MACY,  J.  Parliamentary  Procedure.  (American  Acad- 
emy of  Arts  and  Sciences,  Boston.)  25  cents. 

MELL,  P.  H.  Manual  of  Parliamentary  Procedure. 
(Baptist  Book  Concern,  Louisville,  Kentucky.) 
60  cents. 

PALMER,  E.  New  Parliamentary  Manual.  (Hinds, 
Hayden  &  Eldredge,  New  York.)  75  cents. 

PAUL,  N.  B.  Parliamentary  Law.  (The  Century  Co., 
New  York.)  75  cents. 

REED,  T.  B.  Parliamentary  Rules.  (Rand-McNally 
Co.,  Chicago.)  75  cents. 

ROBERT,  H.  M.  Rules  of  Order.  (Scott,  Foresman  & 
Co.,  Chicago.)  75  cents. 

ROBERT,  J.  T.  Parliamentary  Syllabus.  (Scott,  Fores- 
man  &  Co.,  Chicago.)  50  cents. 

ROBINSON,  W.  S.  Manual  of  Parliamentary  Practice. 
(Lee  &  Shepard,  Boston.)  50  cents. 

ROE,  J.  N.  Practical  Parliamentary  Law.  (Bogarte 
Book  Store,  Valparaiso,  Indiana.)  25  cents. 

SMITH,  U.  Diagram  of  Parliamentary  Rules.  (Southern 
Pub.  Ass'n,  Nashville,  Tennessee.)  50  cents. 

TROW,  C.  W.  Parliamentarian.  (Wessels  &  Bessell 
Co.,  New  York.)  75  cents. 

WEATHERLY,  J.  Parliamentary  Law  in  a  Nut  Shell. 
(J.  W.  Weatherly,  Emporia,  Kansas.)  10  cents. 

WHARTON,  F.  Parliamentary  Digest.  (Kay  &  Broth- 
ers, 19  S.  Sixth  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania.) 
$2.50. 


THE   END 


HARPER'S 

CITIZEN'S     SERIES 

EDITED  BY  WILLIAM  F.  WILLOUGHBY 

Professor  of  Government  and  Jurisprudence  at  Princeton  University 


PRINCIPLES  OF  LABOR   LEGISLATION 
By  JOHN  R.  COMMONS,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Political  Economy,  University  of  Wisconsin 
Former  Member  Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin,  and 
United  States  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations,  and 

JOHN  B.  ANDREWS,   Ph.D. 

Secretary  of  the  American  Association  for  Labor  Legislation 
Editor  of  the  "American  Labor  Legislation  Review" 

"  The  best   American   text   book   in    its   particular- 
field."— Prof.  JAMES  FORD,  of  Harvard  University. 
Crown  8vo,  Cloth 


PRINCIPLES  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL 
GOVERNMENT 

By  FRANK  J.  GOODNOW,  LL.D. 

President  Johns  Hopkins  University 

The  President  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  is 
an  authority  of  international  reputation.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  he  was  invited  to  China  by  the  Gov- 
ernment to  draw  up  a  constitution.  This  book  is 
not  only  a  comprehensive  statement  of  the  subj.  ct, 
but  it  is  clearly  and  interestingly  written. 
Crown  8vo,  Cloth 


HARPER   &   BROTHERS 
NEW  YORK       ESTABLISHED  1817       LONDON 


IMPORTANT   BOOKS 


THE  OFFENDER 

Harper's  Modern  Science  Series 
By  BURDETTE  G.  LEWIS 

New  York  State  Commissioner  of  Correction 

This  book  on  prison  reform  is  for  the  general  reader 
as  well  as  for  the  judge,  the  lawyer,  the  student.  It 
enumerates  all  the  latest  theories  on  the  subject  and  the 
experiments  which  have  tested  them,  and  makes 
practical  suggestions  for  dealing  with  the  various  phases 
of  the  many-sided  problem  of  the  offender. 

SAFETY 

BY  W.  H.  TOLMAN  AND  LEONARD  B.  KENDALL 

Methods  for  preventing  occupational  and  other 
accidents  and  disease.  This  volume  is  the  result  of 
years  of  study  on  the  new  industrialism  from  the  point 
of  view  of  safeguarding  the  human  factors.  It  is 
based  on  the  best  American  and  European  practice. 
Fully  Illustrated 

PRINCIPLES 

OF  SCIENTIFIC  MANAGEMENT 
By  FREDERICK  W.  TAYLOR 

The  author  is  the  originator  of  the  system  of  Scien- 
tific Management,  and  for  nearly  thirty  years  was  at 
work  on  the  principles  which  have  made  such  changes 
in  this  and  other  countries. 

SHOP  MANAGEMENT  By  FREDERICK  W.  TAYLOR 
A  practical  exposition  of  the  theories  discussed  in 
the  foregoing. 

APPLIED  CITY  GOVERNMENT 
By  HERMAN  G.  JAMES 

The  author  is  associate  professor  of  government  and 
director  of  the  bureau  of  municipal  research  and  refer- 
ence at  the  University  of  Texas.  The  subtitle  of  this 
book  is  "  The  Principles  and  Practice  of  City  Charter- 
Making:' 


HARPER  &   BROTHERS 
NEW  YORK       ESTABLISHED  1817       LONDON 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL     FINE     OF    25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


IMEIT  301933 
NOV  17T933 

SEP  17  1&9 


LD  21-50m-l,'33 


L-l      WC-vJ 


372340 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


